House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We recognise and share public concern over abuses of new technology to harm victims, and we are taking action. Today, new provisions on threatening to share private sexual images come into force, and we are going further. We have asked the Law Commission to review the law on image abuse to ensure that victims are properly protected. The commission will publish recommendations in spring next year, and we will consider them very carefully.
Paul Blomfield [V]
My constituent Helen Mort had the appalling experience of finding out that someone unknown to her had taken ordinary images from her social media and superimposed them on violent and extreme pornography. These were not intimate images, but they were used to create deepfakes. When she went to the police, she was told that there was no crime to investigate as the original images were not private. The Law Commission’s review, to which the Minister refers, proposes extending the criminalisation of sharing intimate images to include deepfakes. Will the Minister ensure that the Government respond positively and quickly to those proposals so that people like Helen are protected in the future?
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that harrowing case. He is absolutely right to do so. We recognise that the law needs to keep pace with those who would use technology to perpetrate dreadful abuse. We have asked the Law Commission to act, as he indicated. It is doing so at pace, and we will be looking very carefully with a view to extending the law where it is appropriate to do so.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
The pandemic has affected courts, like it has affected so many other areas of life. The Government have responded energetically and comprehensively, for example by opening 60 new Nightingale courtrooms, hiring an extra 1,600 Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, injecting hundreds of millions of pounds extra into the system, and making sure that around 20,000 hearings a week can now be conducted online. These measures are designed to enable court recovery, and I can assure the House that these efforts will continue.
Alex Davies-Jones
The Minister’s total failure to improve court waiting times is having a very real-world cost, no more so than for my 100-year-old constituent whose fraud case against a former carer amounts to more than a quarter of a million pounds. Despite initiating the case more than four years ago, that elderly woman is still waiting and is unlikely to see justice served in her lifetime. The Minister knows about that case, as I have written to his Department on multiple occasions, but still the delays persist. What exactly does he have to say to my constituent, along with the thousands of others like her who are once again being left behind by this Government and denied justice?
Chris Philp
Listing of individual cases is a judicial function, and there are sometimes legal reasons why cases get put off. I must say that in Wales, actually, the court system is performing particularly well at the moment. The hon. Lady talks about delays. Of course, during the pandemic some delays have built up, but in the magistrates court, for example, about half of the backlog that accumulated due to covid, which peaked in about August last year, has already been removed. The outstanding case load in the magistrates court is currently dropping at a rate of around 2,000 a week. I also gently point out that the outstanding case load prior to the pandemic in the Crown court, at 39,000 cases, was considerably lower than the 47,000 cases in 2010.
Navendu Mishra
The Crown court backlog has reached a new record high of nearly 60,000 cases. That is the result of a decade of Conservative cuts and court closures. Will the Government commit to continuing Nightingale courts until the backlog is cleared?
Chris Philp
We are continuing Nightingale courtrooms. We are also saying to the judiciary, critically, that there will be no constraint on Crown court sitting days this current financial year; the judiciary can list as many cases as they are physically able to. On Crown court numbers, clearly, jury trials and pandemics do not mix very well, but thanks to the steps taken, we have seen the corner turned just recently—in the last few weeks. Crown court case numbers are beginning to edge down for the first time, and we are committed to making sure that continues.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Minister’s last point, because the Director of Public Prosecutions told the Justice Committee two weeks ago that case loads in the Crown court are currently at 95% of physical capacity, making allowance for the Nightingale courts, but that the Crown Prosecution Service’s total case load has increased by some 53% since February 2020. Does the Minister agree that that must mean that, to keep the backlog reducing in a sustainable fashion, we must have long-term, continued investment in increased court capacity, but also in judges and recorders, in court staff available to hear and try cases, and in CPS staff to ensure that they are ready for trial on time?
Chris Philp
The Chair of the Justice Committee is, as always, right in his analysis. We need to ensure that the capacity exists and, for the reason he mentioned, 1,600 extra staff have already been hired for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. He also mentioned Crown Prosecution Service capacity. I think its budget recently went up by about £80 million to enable 400 additional prosecutors to be hired.
In relation to judicial capacity, we will shortly bring forward measures to increase the mandatory retirement age for magistrates and judges from 70 to 75, which we hope will retain the most experienced judges who will be able to sit and hear these cases. In relation to physical courtroom capacity, we have clearly invested enormously in technology to enable remote hearings and, as I mentioned, about 20,000 a week are taking place. In addition to that, we have the 60 Nightingale courtrooms. When social distancing is relaxed—nothing has been confirmed, but we have a reasonable expectation that it will be in the near future—a reduction in those requirements will enable more courtrooms to be used safely than is the case today, which will also greatly assist court recovery.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister has been keen to talk up the Government’s efforts to get court waiting lists down, but it is vital that efficiency does not come at the expense of effective and proper justice. I hope he is aware of the controversy surrounding the use of the single justice procedure in relation to the thousands of people prosecuted for coronavirus-related offences and the fact that hundreds—the bulk in their absence—may have been wrongly charged and convicted. Indeed, 37 people have been unlawfully prosecuted under schedule 22 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which has never been activated in England. When that problem was highlighted by Big Brother Watch and The Guardian newspaper, the Ministry of Justice said that
“defendants can…have their conviction voided and reheard if necessary.”
Surely the Minister agrees that such incompetence adds to the burden of the courts, is more expensive, weakens justice and may well be unlawful. What is he going to do about it?
Chris Philp
First, it is important to make clear that prosecution decisions are taken by the independent Crown Prosecution Service, not by the courts system. Secondly, when it comes to maintaining standards of justice, I think the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Secretary of State, floated the idea of having smaller juries earlier in the pandemic. Of course, we have maintained juries at 12. However, where unusual measures such as remote hearings have had to be taken throughout the pandemic, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has ensured that justice standards have been maintained. Judges have always had the proper discretion to direct proceedings in their courtrooms so that justice is not only properly done but fairly done.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The Government have established the independent Human Rights Act review to examine the framework of the Act, how it is operating in practice and whether any change is required. The review is considering the approach taken by our domestic courts to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and whether the HRA currently strikes the correct balance between the roles of the courts, the Government and this place. The report, due this summer, will be published, as will the Government’s response.
Hannah Bardell [V]
Given this Tory Government’s track record of either not consulting or railroading changes without consultation, will the Secretary of State confirm that any proposals to amend the Human Rights Act will be subject to a full public consultation lasting at least three months?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady will be glad to know that a wholly independent review reflecting opinion from right across the United Kingdom and beyond was set up and will report in due course. Then, no doubt, there will be a consultation on those issues ahead of any legislative change that the Government might introduce to this place.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
This week, the UN’s special rapporteur for human rights said that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 and the judicial review Bill will all make human rights violations more likely to occur. The Lord Chancellor will be aware of his special responsibilities to defend human rights both in his Department and across Government. As his two-year anniversary as Lord Chancellor arrives next month—I congratulate him on that—will he consider starting to do that part of his job? How will he respond to the UN special rapporteur’s assessment?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. With respect to the special rapporteur, I would strongly argue that in everything we do and say in this place and in Government, the necessary checks and balances are carried out to ensure that the human rights that he and I believe in are preserved. I can think of no better example than the Bill currently before the House with regard to the duties that the police will have on the need to balance freedom of expression and the rights of other people. That is a balancing exercise at all times, and I will discharge my duties in the way that I believe I have for the past two years.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We are investing in vital victim support services to the tune of more than £150 million this year. The forthcoming victims Bill will enshrine victims’ rights in law and explore the provision of domestic abuse and sexual violence support. We are also working with the Home Secretary to develop new violence against women and girls and domestic abuse strategies to help to drive a step change in response to these crimes.
Darren Henry [V]
During this pandemic, we have seen an unprecedented rise in domestic abuse cases in the UK. In my constituency, the Broxtowe Women’s Project has worked tirelessly to support many victims of domestic violence. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that they are tackling domestic abuse? Will he also set out their plans to provide long-term support, both to those who are directly affected and to their children, who often do not receive the support they need?
Kit Malthouse
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that organisation to prominence; I am grateful to it for the valuable work that no doubt it has done, alongside others, during these dreadful past 16 months or so. For our part, we have boosted funding for specialist services by £51 million to support victims through the covid-19 pandemic and beyond. That included £20.7 million for local community-based sexual violence and domestic abuse services and a £27 million investment over two years to recruit more independent sexual and domestic violence advisers. The landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 contains new measures to protect victims and will be followed by new violence against women and girls and domestic abuse strategies, while the victims Bill will further transform victims’ experience. I hope that that will have an impact in Broxtowe, along with the rest of the country.
Florence Eshalomi [V]
Mr Speaker,
“Domestic abuse victims have to be taken seriously and listened to”.
That is a direct quote from a letter to me from a constituent who suffered physical, emotional and financial abuse at the hands of her now ex-partner. She came to my surgery not to talk about him, but for help with dealing with the police, who she says mishandled her case and have not taken her seriously. Instead of believing that the red marks on her neck were from an attempted strangulation, they responded that the marks were too thin and did not look serious enough. They also did not follow up on the spy camera in her home.
Victims of domestic violence and abuse have told me that the burden of proof is on them. Can the Minister tell me what steps he is taking to bring about a culture change in the police so that victims of domestic violence are believed from the outset?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, I am very alarmed to hear about that incident. I hope that the hon. Lady will advise her constituent, if she is unhappy, to pursue a complaint about her treatment through the provisions available to her, both through the Metropolitan police and through the Independent Office for Police Conduct. As part of our work over the next few months towards a new violence against women and girls strategy, we will be engaging the police to ensure that, as the hon. Lady says, every victim who comes forward to the police and makes allegations of such a serious nature is taken into account.
I have to say that, while I am sorry to hear about that experience, I have witnessed some very good and important work by the police, not least the Metropolitan Police Service. I recently visited its predatory offenders unit, which specifically targets those who commit domestic violence and abuse where the victim is too afraid to pursue a prosecution, and looks for other ways to apprehend the perpetrator and put them behind bars.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Henriett Szucs and Jan Mustafa were brutally murdered, and their bodies were found in the freezer of a known violent sex offender. Their deaths were avoidable, had it not been for a catalogue of failures within the justice system—failures that allowed this man the freedom to repeatedly commit horrifying crimes—and the collapse in victim safeguarding. Two women each week are murdered by a current or former partner, and apologies simply are not enough. I do not see the necessary action being taken to prevent the next Henriett or Jan. Labour has a ready-to-go plan, including a review of domestic violence and homicides; new progress indicators, as we have in Wales; more sustainable funding; and better access to specialist support services. The Minister has the power to stop violence against women being an afterthought in the justice system, so will he work with us to achieve it?
Kit Malthouse
I obviously reject the assertion that violence against women—or, indeed, anybody—is an afterthought for this Government. I do not think anybody could look at what we have done over the past two years and think that we have done anything other than throw our entire weight behind the fight against violence. Specifically, the hon. Lady will have noted that one of the five key priorities set by the National Policing Board for the whole of the criminal justice system, including the police, has been the suppression and reduction of murder, a third of which are domestic. She will be interested to know that I am now entering the second round of homicide murder roundtables with police forces across the country and looking at their murder prevention strategies to ensure that they get ahead of exactly the kind of heinous crime that she points to. We know that the perpetrators of murder in this country have, on average, seven previous offences. That means that we should be able, as she rightly says, to identify them before they commit that catastrophic and appalling act, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We are working across Government to transform the response to the abhorrent crime of domestic violence. We passed our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in April, to be followed by the new violence against women and girls and domestic abuse strategies. The victims Bill will further transform victims’ experience. We have also provided unprecedented funding to support the sector.
Robert Halfon
My constituent, a courageous woman, Ms Charlotte Budd, is a survivor of domestic abuse, but she suffered a great deal further from her experience in the family court system. Ms Budd has criticised the pro-contact nature of the family court, arguing that decisions have resulted in unsafe child arrangements. I would be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend could set out what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the presumption of contact issue does not have damaging consequences for victims of domestic abuse like Ms Charlotte Budd. Will one of the Ministers in the Department meet me and my constituent, Ms Budd, to discuss these issues further?
Kit Malthouse
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this case, and I am very sorry to hear this distressing story. He is quite right to say that the presumption of parental contact has been a cause of concern to many, on the basis that it might expose parents and children to greater risk, and we are reviewing this provision at the moment. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss this case—and, indeed, the review—further in the hope that we can move to an improved situation.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The Government recognise the deep distress that the theft of a much-loved pet can cause, and I have met the Home Secretary and the Environment Secretary to create a taskforce to investigate the problem end to end. That work is under way and it is gathering evidence to understand the factors that may be contributing to any rise in pet theft and to recommend measures to tackle the problem. It will report to Ministers on potential solutions by the summer.
John Lamont
I am grateful for that response. Mandatory microchipping has been a welcome step forward, and I understand that the law is now consistent across all parts of the United Kingdom. What steps have been taken to improve the microchipping process so that owners can know where microchips are being run, when and by whom?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend will know that our manifesto pledge is to extend microchipping to cats as well. With regard to dogs, over 90% of them in England are now microchipped. This year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is carrying out a post-implementation review of the regulations that introduced microchipping in 2015, to see how the various databases can operate in a more co-ordinated way, and it will come forward with proposals later in the year.
Alexander Stafford
Pet theft is the most scurrilous crime, and residents have spoken to me about the loss they have felt when their dog or cat has been stolen from them. Does the Minister agree that each local force should have a dedicated dog theft lead? Will he join my calls for the police and crime commissioner to have a dog theft lead for South Yorkshire police, like the one for the Nottinghamshire constabulary?
Robert Buckland
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to this campaign. I am pleased to hear about his energetic efforts in this sphere and I wish him well. Decisions on priorities are, of course, a matter for individual forces, but I am sure he will want to work with his local force to achieve the laudable aims that his campaign represents.
Jonathan Gullis
Pet theft is a shameless and disgusting act that harms families across our country. Scumbag Malachy Doherty of Tunstall was recently sentenced to 27 weeks in prison for stealing Labradors Denzel and Welly. Twenty-seven weeks does not seem long enough to me, so does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke that, as part of the pet theft taskforce, firmer punishments and vets checking microchips at the first visit will be ways to help prevent the heartache felt by many victims’ families?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend always speaks with vigour on behalf of his constituents, and I wholeheartedly agree with his revulsion at this appalling type of crime. We share his deep concern, which is why the sort of ideas and proposals he outlined are very much at the forefront of Government thinking.
Jane Stevenson
I thank the Secretary of State for speaking to me recently about pet theft. In the recent local election campaign in Wolverhampton, I spoke to several constituents who are now too nervous to go out to walk their dogs, especially in the evening time. Does he recognise that, for their wellbeing, and for that of their dogs, this is an urgent matter? Can he reassure me that as soon as the taskforce reports the Government will take action on pet theft reform?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her deep commitment to this issue. She is so right to highlight the wellbeing and mental health effects of the loss of a much-loved pet on her local residents in Wolverhampton and more widely. That is precisely why we took action to set up the taskforce, and we will indeed be reporting as soon as possible to address the concerns of her constituents.
Mark Fletcher
Pet theft can be absolutely heartbreaking for families. I have spoken to some of the families in my constituency who have gone through this process and they warmly welcome the establishment of the pet theft taskforce. Can my right hon. and learned Friend outline what kind of solutions the taskforce is looking at?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to reflect the views of his constituents in Bolsover and the wider community. We are looking at not just the consequences of pet theft, but ways in which the black market in the trade in animals can be dealt with. Lots of ideas and initiatives merit serious consideration as to how we can prevent the incentives for this sort of despicable crime from occurring in the first place. That is the work that is being carried out now.
Matt Vickers
It is clear today that pet theft is having a huge impact on so many families across the country. Indeed, if my mam had the choice between me and her beloved, slightly obese Bichon, Archie, it would be a close call and I would not fancy my odds. Pet theft is on the rise. The loss of a furry family member is having an impact on so many families. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm not if and how, but when we will update the law to tackle this terrible crime?
Robert Buckland
I am glad that my hon. Friend declared his interest, as is appropriate. Many other Members of this House will be dog owners. I am a cat owner, so I declare that interest. Clearly, behind that, there is a very important point about the ways in which we can help to prevent the spread of this crime. As the Prime Minister said, this is often the underbelly of more organised and serious criminality, where profit is being made on the backs of the misery of not just the pets themselves, but their owners, who suffer great distress as a result of the theft.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The United Kingdom has strong human rights protections within a comprehensive and well-established constitutional and legal system, and a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international human rights obligations. We have put in place a combination of policies and legislation to give effect to the international human rights treaties that we have ratified. We have a strong record before the various UN treaty-monitoring bodies and fully participate in the relevant reporting processes.
Alan Brown
By contrast with what the Secretary of State just said, the Joint Committee on Human Rights recently published a report that concludes that his Department’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will restrict peaceful protest
“in a way that we believe is inconsistent with our rights.”
The report also singles out the provisions on noisy protests as
“neither necessary nor proportionate”.
With findings like those, will the Secretary of State reconsider his assertion that the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights?
Robert Buckland
I am happy to repeat the declaration that I made on the face of the Bill: its provisions are indeed compatible with the convention. As a former member of the Joint Committee, I well appreciate its work, but with respect, I wholly disagree with the analysis that it has produced. The balance between freedom of expression and other fundamental rights and the need to maintain order and protect the rights of other citizens going about their lawful business is properly struck in the Bill, which I commend strongly to the House.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State recently dismissed the relevance of international treaties, so it is interesting that today he is using what he says is compliance with the ECHR to convince us that his Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is not, as the Joint Committee said, “inconsistent with our rights.” How relevant, then, is the opinion of the UN special rapporteur on human rights, who said last week that the Bill runs “counter to the” human rights “direction” that the UK
“need to be going in”?
Is the Secretary of State not just a little bit embarrassed about that?
Robert Buckland
Just as the rapporteur is entitled to express, in clear and independent terms, their view, so are we entitled to disagree with it, and we do so very strongly in this instance.
Anne McLaughlin
So the Secretary of State does not respect international treaties and is not listening to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights; let us see whether he has a little more respect for the UK’s Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Will he join in the condemnation of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who branded Travellers as thieves? What does he say to Travellers who described the Bill as
“the single biggest threat to”
their
“traditional way of life”
and said that it may “entirely eradicate nomadic life”. Does the Secretary of State want to eradicate their way of life?
Robert Buckland
I have not seen what was reported to have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). I simply say that in everything that we seek to do we uphold the principles of equality, inclusion and diversity in our society, but it is also right to remember that the interests of one group will sometimes conflict with the interests of another. It is important for us to maintain the balance between the rights of, in that instance, local residents and the rights of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. It is all about balance, which is what this Government constantly seek to strike through their legislation.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We are taking steps to ensure that we tackle this horrific crime and restore confidence in the criminal justice system, as outlined in the rape review that was published 10 days ago. We will return the volume of rape cases going through the courts to at least 2016 levels by the end of this Parliament and are taking steps to improve the quality of investigations and reduce the time taken for victims to be given their phone back during the course of investigation. Furthermore, we are going to improve the culture of joint working among police and prosecutors and hold each part of the system to account through performance scorecards.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Crown court backlog currently stands at a record high of almost 60,000 cases, and figures show that there has been a 67% rise in the number of sexual offences cases awaiting trial. In the Secretary of State’s own words, rape victims have been “failed” by this Government. The rape review accepted that court delays have contributed to the plummeting number of rape prosecutions. Rape victims deserve a criminal justice system that works for them and not against them, so why did the Government vote against Labour’s amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that called for the fast-tracking of rape cases to be rolled out across England and Wales?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is quite right that delay in the criminal justice system, both from report to charge and then from charge to court, has a significant impact on victims and is a driver of victim attrition and cases therefore not proceeding. We are very focused on compressing each of the various parts of the criminal justice system so that they work efficiently and speedily, in line with the need to get quality cases into court that will hopefully secure convictions. While we have not supported the measures that she put forward for the Bill, she will in time be able to see the performance and the timeliness of various parts of the criminal justice system through the publication of comprehensive scorecards, which will allow us to judge, over time, first, whether the number of cases in court rise, which I believe they will quite significantly, but, secondly, whether more measures are needed to be taken to drive further progress.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We must rehabilitate offenders by focusing relentlessly on the factors that we know drive reoffending. That is why we are working across Government to support people into a job, stable accommodation and treatment for substance misuse. We have recently announced a £200 million investment in third-sector providers that deliver specialist rehabilitation services to address those core priorities.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer thus far. What further measures does he intend to introduce to ensure that prison governors enable those people leaving prison to be properly trained and briefed on how they can get not only housing, but job opportunities and benefits if they qualify for them, so that when they leave prison they are not tempted to go back to their old haunts and, indeed, to reoffend.
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this matter. This House will recall well the excellent work that he did in respect of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. He is absolutely right. We are investing more than £20 million in a landmark new accommodation service, providing up to 12 weeks of accommodation for prison leavers who would otherwise be homeless. That will start later this summer in five of our probation regions in England, but we want to go further. We want to introduce housing specialists in 20 prisons to strengthen partnerships with key stakeholders such as those of local councils and housing providers and to improve the expertise in prisons. We also want prison work coaches, so that not only is the accommodation sorted, but getting into a job is as well. Why is that important? It is because those who leave with a job reduce their chances of reoffending by 9%, changing lives in the process.
Sarah Atherton [V]
HMP Berwyn is one of the largest and newest prisons in Britain and has been chosen as a pilot site for the Ministry of Justice’s employment advisory board scheme. This scheme will bring together business leaders, prison coaches, statutory services and the MP in order to secure employment for offenders on release. I thank the Minister for backing Berwyn and invite him to Wrexham to see the businesses that are putting their faith in the justice system and to sample one of Berwyn’s award-winning custodial pies.
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, but I am even more grateful to her for being such a champion of HMP Berwyn and, indeed, of this important initiative. She is absolutely right: getting more prison leavers into jobs is key to cutting crime. As I have indicated before, it reduces the chance of reoffending by 9%. Of course, I would be delighted to visit her in Wrexham to see the great work of the employment advisory board. I congratulate her and all those she is working with on their fantastic work at Berwyn in the Custodial Pie Corporation, upskilling men in the hospitality industry.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Forgive me, Mr Speaker, I was thinking about the pies at HMP Berwyn.
Robert Buckland
Well, not me. I will leave that to others to answer.
Naturally, I do not disclose the details of private conversations that I have with Cabinet colleagues, but I can say that the Government are thinking very carefully indeed about how to make sure the balance of our constitution is right. In addition to the reviews of administrative law in the Human Rights Act 1998, I am now considering the constitutional settlement that was left by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. I will say more about that in due course and I will be open and consultative as that work is carried out.
John Nicolson [V]
The Public Law Project requested a breakdown of Government spending on judicial review, but it said that the information received was “barely a fraction of what should have been published. It is not detailed or clear enough to give any meaningful insight as to how judicial review impacts Government departments”.
Why are the Government so reluctant to publish everything requested?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman has expressed the view of one contributor to the consultation. I would argue on the contrary—that, indeed, we are publishing everything, consistent with our wider public duty and with our duty to maintain collective Cabinet responsibility. The current consultation has been ongoing. We are due to publish a response to that ahead of any potential legislation. That will all be done. Of course, any proposals will have the fullest scrutiny from him and other right hon. and hon. Members in due course.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We are committed to ensuring that civil legal aid remains accessible to those who need it, including, in particular, victims of domestic abuse. The Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity under review to ensure adequate provision across England and Wales. We are reviewing the legal aid means test, including in relation to victims of domestic abuse. On 3 March, the Chancellor announced a further £19 million package to tackle domestic abuse, and we have made changes to the evidence requirements to make it easier to access legal aid.
Stephanie Peacock
Too many victims of domestic abuse still end up in the family court with no representation, as litigants in person. Does the Minister agree that we should make legal aid available for all victims of domestic abuse?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that legal aid is a vital pillar of support to many people, which is why we have taken steps to ensure that the evidence requirements for those who want access to legal aid have been relaxed. We have also gone further; we have supported organisations such as RCJ Advice through its Finding Legal Options for Women Survivors service, which is a fantastic digital portal to assist people in the agony of that moment—as they may be in their home circumstances—to receive the kind of support that they require so that they are best placed to get a non-molestation order or an occupation order. We are determined to stand up for victims of domestic abuse.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Since January this year, the review has conducted a public call for evidence, which has received more than 150 submissions, and has engaged with a wide range of interested parties at roundtable meetings and online public roadshow events. The evidence-gathering period has now concluded. The panel is now considering the evidence and will draft its report over the summer. The report will then be published, as will the Government’s response.
Mr Carmichael
What does the Secretary of State want to achieve with his review? He will be aware that as long as we remain a party to the European convention on human rights, the rights that are available to citizens as a consequence cannot be altered. Any changes to the Human Rights Act would just return us to the situation that we had before the Act, when we could only enforce the remedies for these rights by going to Strasbourg. Is that what the Government want to achieve here?
Robert Buckland
I know that the right hon. Gentleman will read the review’s findings with great care. I have been clear that this is not about changing the fundamental rights themselves, as he has quite rightly observed; it is about the way in which the domestic courts implement and interpret those rights. It is about the mechanism, if you like. It is now 20 years since the Act came into force and I think it is right at this juncture to give it a careful examination. That is what the independent review is all about. As he would expect, it will be followed up by the fullest consultation, in which I know he will play a vigorous part.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is an offence to publish any matter likely to identify a person who has made an allegation of rape or other sexual assault. The prohibition applies automatically from the moment the offence is reported and has effect throughout the complainant’s lifetime.
Mr Dhesi
The public naming of a rape victim who has bravely come forward is devastating for the individual concerned, but under current legislation perpetrators of this crime get no more than a mere £200 fine. At a time when 44% of rape victims are actually pulling out of the justice system before their day in court, does the Minister agree that such lax laws can deter even more sexual assault victims from coming forward? If so, why did his Government vote down proposals that would have strengthened prosecuting powers against such perpetrators?
Kit Malthouse
Those proposals were not appropriate for support, but we are having a think and will make an announcement shortly.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I have every sympathy for the survivors and victims of Medomsley detention centre, who suffered abhorrent abuse. The Ministry of Justice has been working for several years to compensate properly survivors and victims. Where necessary, claimants are able to submit medical evidence to support allegations of abuse so that damages can be appropriately assessed. That includes both physical and psychological injury. The majority of claims for compensation have now been settled under a settlement protocol.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful for that answer. The compensation scheme covers physical, not sexual abuse. My constituent suffered terrible, much more serious abuse. He was drugged and raped, which has had a profound effect on his health for over 40 years—both his physical and his mental health—and that of his family. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me, my constituent and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Medomsley detention centre to discuss a proper compensation settlement for my constituent?
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and he paints a truly harrowing picture. For the avoidance of doubt, cases involving serious sexual harm and psychological injury can be dealt with by the Government Legal Department, albeit outside the standard compensation scheme. Because of their seriousness and complexity, they are considered on a case-by-case basis and awards made have been significant. We take great care to ensure the level of compensation properly reflects the seriousness of the abuse. It is of course always open to claimants to issue proceedings in the courts outwith the scheme, should they see fit. I would be happy to meet to discuss the protocols, but I just say this: it is important that Ministers do not interfere in specific cases when litigation is ongoing.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Over the weekend, we launched the unified probation service for England and Wales. It was the culmination of huge amounts of preparation over two years, and I am hugely grateful to probation colleagues and frontline staff for making it happen. We have invested £310 million in that time to recruit 1,000 extra probation officers, with 1,500 more on the way, alongside making more use of technology such as GPS and sobriety tags. We are determined to ensure that the millions of hours of unpaid work handed down to offenders every year are served more visibly, keeping our towns, cities and our countryside clean. I have said many times that every Department of Government should be a criminal justice department, and the new probation service will be at the heart of a more joined-up approach with police, health services, local authorities and others to cut crime and keep the public safe from harm.
Fleur Anderson
On 17 June, I wrote to the Justice Secretary about probation services, raising a deeply concerning whistleblower case in the probation service. When my constituent first joined the service, there were 10 members of staff in her team. At the end of 2020, three members of staff had left and a further three were on long-term sick leave, and the case load was overwhelming. Does the Secretary of State accept that the 60% drop in staffing levels presents an unacceptable risk to public safeguarding, the welfare of probation service officers and the rehabilitation of offenders?
Robert Buckland
I will make sure that the hon. Lady’s letter is brought to my attention. She sent it just over a week ago. I will not comment about the individual case, but it will of course be looked at carefully. She will be encouraged to know that as a result of the investment we are making, 1,000 more probation officers have been recruited already. We are going for another 1,500, and that means that, together with the changes to how case loads are managed, probation officers will be supported and encouraged, and the sort of issues that she raises I believe will start to diminish, because that is my determination. I want to sing the praises of an unsung public service.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Government’s response to the economic crime threat is set out in our economic crime plan, which lists seven strategic priorities for combating crime through a specially convened public-private partnership. That includes a number of specific actions, including focusing on high-harm fraud types through online activity such as courier fraud, romance fraud and investment fraud. We are considering whether further legislative changes need to be brought in to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to combat these emerging threats.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have apologised for the Government’s failure of rape victims resulting in record low prosecution and conviction rates. In attempting to atone for these mistakes it is vital that the Government are honest with victims. Last week, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed he was investing another £1 billion in clearing the court backlogs, but in the spending review the figure announced to address the backlogs is £275 million. I am sure that the Prime Minister was not deliberately misleading the House. Will the Secretary of State correct the record?
Robert Buckland
The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I think I can help to clarify for him. With regard to the specific figure, that of course relates to spending during this coming year. We spent another equivalent sum in the previous year on court recovery. Indeed, when you look at the figures that we were spending anyway on new technology in our courts, and indeed the Crown Prosecution Service expenditure as well, then the figure actually is the correct one. He should realise that it is not just the Ministry of Justice that is funding court recovery and the effects of covid; the Attorney General’s Office and indeed the Home Office as well have a responsibility with regard to victims. So I am afraid that fox is well and truly shot.
Mr Lammy
I have to say that the Secretary of State’s verbosity serves him well.
In March, the Lord Chancellor told the Justice Committee that he had been “played for a fool” in relation to improvements at Rainsbrook secure training centre. He was clear that
“this will not happen again. Otherwise, the consequences will be extremely serious for those responsible.”
Yet this did happen again, and only a year and a half later have children been moved out of harm’s way. As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Does the Lord Chancellor feel like a fool, and what “extremely serious” consequences will he deliver to ensure that this does not happen again?
Robert Buckland
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman asks me that question because I can reassure him that as soon as the particular reports were received from the independent monitors I took swift action to make sure that the safety and wellbeing of children at Rainsbrook was preserved. That is why we ordered that children in the unit were moved. Indeed, work is carrying on with regard to the overall future of Rainsbrook. It would be wrong of me to speculate while discussions with the provider remain ongoing, but I can tell him this: I will do whatever it takes to make sure that the children in our care are protected and that all our institutions, including Rainsbrook, are run properly. I can assure him that the providers have had the message loud and clear from me and that there will be no second chances.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter. It is an extraordinary fact that 10 years ago stalking was not even an offence, but it was made an offence in 2012. I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), had a campaign to double the maximum sentence so there is a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. But it is not enough to have the punishment; we have to make sure that these matters get before the courts as well, and that is why I am grateful to the police and the courts for prioritising them. Those who stalk should know that they will be punished properly.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue of genuine and widespread public concern. He will note that the phraseology in the Bill talks about memorials, which of course would include memorials such as the one to Sir Winston Churchill. The important point is that we can now move away from the court determining on the mere cost of repair to criminal damage to look at the overall cultural and emotional value of statues like that one, and indeed, ordinary “unvisited tombs”, to quote George Eliot, of people who have a great value to the local community and to their loved ones.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for paying tribute to law centres; she is absolutely right to do that. They do an important job of ensuring that individuals—sometimes vulnerable individuals—can get that vital legal advice and access to justice that they need. That is why, at the beginning of the pandemic, when the message came out that they might face real threats to their viability, we stepped in. The Law Centres Network asked for £3 million and we provided that. It was distributed through the network to ensure that law centres have the funds they need to continue their excellent work.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to analyse the figures closely. It is interesting to note that some of the assumptions that people make about foreign nationals and where they are from are out of date. My hon. Friend is right to highlight our agreement with Albania, but operationally those issues are difficult because often the individuals whom we have identified, prosecuted and properly incarcerated will not be known to the authorities in the receiving country and there are issues with identity. However, we carry on with our joint work across Government to ensure that as many of those foreign national offenders as possible are repatriated as quickly as possible. I think the latest cumulative figure over the past five years is about 5,000, but of course I will correct the record if that proves to be incorrect.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
May I put on record my condemnation of the appalling incident involving Professor Whitty in the last few days? With regard to the way in which antisocial behaviour is policed, there have been welcome initiatives and, indeed, changes to the law by Government on preventive measures, particularly for young people and children. Our youth offending teams and other diversionary teams have done a lot to ensure that those issues do not end up before a court, when the damage is already done. I take the strong view that the distinction between crime and antisocial behaviour is artificial. Of course, I will look constructively at anything that we can incorporate in the forthcoming victims consultation and, indeed, the Bill, which, I assure the hon. Gentleman, will come.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to raise on behalf of his constituents in Bury the real damage that can be caused to the community by careless and dangerous driving. Through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we will increase the maximum penalties for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs, and for causing death by dangerous driving, from 14 years to life imprisonment. There will also be a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, to close a gap in the law.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking so strongly on behalf of his constituents. Colin Pitchfork’s offences were the gravest of crimes, and the families of Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth still live with the pain that he caused. The independent Parole Board’s role is to assess whether he is safe for release, rather than whether he has been punished enough. I understand why this decision has affected public confidence. It has been reviewed by officials in my Department, and we found arguable grounds that the decision was irrational, so I have asked the Parole Board to reconsider it using the mechanism that my hon. Friend rightly identified.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that question. I can absolutely assure her that the rights of LGBTQ+ people will be respected, honoured and celebrated by my Department. We are taking the fullest and most enthusiastic part in Pride Month, which of course is now. The issue with regard to Stonewall was simply this: my officials and I were no longer convinced that the particular scheme that we had taken part in was the right use of public money. There were concerns about the direction of that organisation, which has done so much to advance the cause of people of an LGBT+ orientation. It was with great sorrow and regret that that decision was made, but I assure the hon. and learned Lady that the underlying commitment to and passion for those issues absolutely remains.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Over 8,000 criminal cases are waiting to be resolved in Devon and Cornwall. Many of my constituents in East Devon are anxiously awaiting progress on their cases, and they feel no closer to justice. What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to reducing the backlogs in Devon?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to raise issues affecting his constituents. He will be glad to know that in his region, huge strides have been made in magistrates and Crown courts to deal effectively with the case load. Based on the figures I see regularly, I am encouraged by the progress being made in his local courts. That is part of a national drive to deal with capacity, which we have increased through Nightingale courts. There is no limit on sitting days in the Crown court during the year ahead. If all is well with the road map later in July, the further easing of restrictions will allow even more cases to be listed, so that justice can be delivered as quickly as possible, both for my hon. Friend’s constituents and for the wider public.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Emergency Covid Contracts
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government’s use of emergency covid contracts.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
Urgent questions are appearing like buses for me this week.
I am grateful for the chance to address the House about the Government’s use of emergency covid contracts. I have previously responded to debates on this issue with as much detail and candour as I have been able to provide as someone who came to this brief last June and who has tried subsequently to understand what happened in the early months of the pandemic.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) will know that all corners of our country have worked together to tackle covid. The public have all too often seen division between different regional authorities but, in truth, close collaboration with the devolved Administrations has been at the heart of our pandemic response, enabling swift policy action such as the roll-out of the vaccine programme UK-wide, the furlough scheme and a rapid increase in testing capacity.
At the beginning of the pandemic, over 13 million items of personal protective equipment were distributed to the devolved Administrations. Throughout the pandemic, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations have worked side by side on sourcing and supply of PPE such as FFP3 masks, and they continue to work together on meeting future demands on frontline staff. The existing procurement rules rightly allow the Government to procure at speed at times of emergency under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The rules predate covid-19, and there was no need for suspension or relaxation in order for them to be used. None the less, I understand and welcome questions that right hon. and hon. Members have about covid contracts, because how we spend taxpayers’ money matters very deeply to public trust.
It is true to say that the Government faced a number of challenges at the height of the pandemic, and we should be open about those. It is incumbent on all of us to understand not only the kinds of pressures that were on the system, but some of the shortcomings that desperately need to be addressed. That being the case, the Government are already adapting their commercial guidance and work. Following the first, independent Boardman review of procurement processes, looking at a small number of contracts in the Government Communication Service, 24 out of 28 recommendations have already been implemented, and the remainder will be met by the end of the calendar year. Following the second, wider Boardman review, which looked at PPE, ventilators, test and trace, vaccines and food parcels across Government, 28 further recommended improvements were identified, and progress on those is under way. Our Green Paper on transforming public procurement also sets out proposals to update the rules on procuring in times of extreme emergency or crisis.
Let me also briefly address the issue of Government polling during the pandemic. The Government regularly undertake research to support policy development, which includes work related to the impact of covid in areas across the UK. It is the sign of a responsible Government to understand the public’s views on how best to keep people safe to recover from the pandemic and to ensure that we will continue to deliver for all parts of the United Kingdom.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I welcome the Minister to her place; it is the first time I have appeared opposite her.
After the revelations and resignations at the weekend, this urgent question concerns yet another scandal at the very heart of this Tory Government. It seems that not even a health pandemic can do away with classic Tory cronyism, and the scale of this particular scandal makes it one of the biggest yet.
The Secretary of State ordered the use of a £560,000 emergency covid contract to conduct constitutional campaigning on the Union. Instead of using an emergency covid contract to order PPE for the NHS, the Minister chose to order political polling. This is not media speculation, and it is not even a political accusation. It is, Mr Speaker, a plain fact. It comes directly from official evidence that has been published in the High Court. It comes in evidence from the Cabinet Office, in a witness statement dated 24 December 2020, which states:
“I...received an urgent request for Union-related research from the office of the Rt Hon Michael Gove...In response, I asked Public First to conduct some testing of people’s attitudes”
on this issue.
Did the Prime Minister know or approve of that polling and constitutional campaigning? Who were the polling results shared with, and will they be published in full? How many other pieces of political research were ordered during the pandemic, and exactly how much public money has been spent? These are just some of the questions that the Secretary of State needs to answer. There are many, many more.
The Secretary of State was in Scotland yesterday. He held a press conference. He told Greg Russell of The National newspaper:
“We don’t use taxpayer funds for party political polling”.
He went on to claim that the contract was assigned by others. We know from the witness statement that these things are not true. The truth and this Government are distant strangers, and that should come as no surprise when we remember the Prime Minister has been sacked not once but twice for lying.
Ian Blackford
Last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said he was unaware of these contracts, and ever since he has ignored demands for a full—
Mr Speaker
Order. A serious allegation about somebody lying will have to be withdrawn—as we know, hon. Members would never lie. I am sure we would like to think about the language being used, because I am not convinced about the proof of that. I think we should withdraw the word “lie”.
Ian Blackford
I have been very careful with my language, Mr Speaker, and I am pointing out the contradiction between the witness—
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Blackford, please. You cannot criticise another Member such as the Prime Minister without a substantive motion. That is not what has been granted. The language we use is important for me to keep good order, and I am sure you could reflect on the words about another Member, who I presume has also been given notice of any criticism.
Ian Blackford
Indeed, I am relying on matters of fact, Mr Speaker. Just as the Prime Minister failed to act and sack his Health Secretary, he has failed to act on this scandal, too. But no matter how hard they might try to sweep this under the carpet, this scandal is not going away. This morning I have written to the Cabinet Secretary, urging him to launch—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are now one minute over the time that I granted. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is now going to end in the next seconds.
Ian Blackford
This morning I have written to the Cabinet Secretary urging him to launch an independent investigation into this blatant misuse of public money for political purposes. So finally, if this UK Government have nothing to hide, will the Minister join me in supporting that investigation by the Cabinet Secretary, and will she co-operate with it?
Julia Lopez
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, and I will try to address them with facts, not party political allegation. First, if I may, I would like to provide some context to the direct award of the Public First contract for communications during the pandemic. In March 2020, there was no vaccine, no test and trace, and very little knowledge of how to best manage this novel disease. Strong messaging of the kind that could alter behaviours was, at the outset of the pandemic, one of the few tools in our arsenal in the battle against transmission. It was in this context that rapid decisions were made on comms contracts, including a decision that was challenged in court recently.
Public First was taken on, alongside BritainThinks, as one of only two companies in the market deemed to have the scale, expertise and experience to provide focus group testing in March last year. Both were rapidly diverted from existing work to take a snapshot of public reaction, and that allowed us to test things such as the contain strategy, the early “Stop The Spread” campaign and the “Stay Home” message, alongside an understanding of how best to tailor messages to different audiences across the UK. These key communications campaigns were seen on television and social media, and I am sure we will all be familiar with them.
Ministers had no personal involvement in the decision to award this contract, and they do not, of course, personally approve contract awards. This contract did not relate to constitutional campaigning, and any suggestion that the Government carry out party political research is entirely false.
Julia Lopez
The Government regularly conduct research in every part of the UK to support policy development. In this case, we were testing public attitudes relating to the covid-19 pandemic. This became particularly relevant as different regions of the UK began to diverge in their approach to tackling covid, and that created understandable confusion.
Focus groups, which were conducted by Public First but commissioned by the national resilience communications hub, looked at attitudes towards the virus, upcoming recovery and the wider context in which to interpret the results, and the results were shared with relevant policy and communications teams. They were involved in developing and delivering covid policy and communications across the devolved Administrations, enabling them to differentiate their content and messages as appropriate. We do not plan to publish the full results of the polling and focus groups that have been used to inform ongoing policy formulation. However, we regularly review all the data we collect, and we intend to publish the elements that are not sensitive in due course.
Separately, the Cabinet Office carries out polling on attitudes towards the Union on a regular basis, but this work was paused during the coronavirus crisis. We are aware that the Scottish Government also conducted polling on attitudes in relation to covid. We did not see this research, nor would we expect to. The Secretary of State for Scotland has already addressed some of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman has raised online on his Twitter account.
Finally, to return to the judgment on Public First at the recent court hearing, that judgment found in favour of the Government on two grounds, which were emergency award and contract terms, including length. It was recognised that
“everyone involved was acting under immense pressure and the urgency of the…crisis did not allow time for reflection. The time constraints justified…derogation from the usual procedures required under PCR 2015. But they did not exonerate the Defendant from conducting the procurement so as to demonstrate a fair and impartial process of selection.”
We have already recognised that there was an issue of process, where we could do much better. That is why we investigated what had happened to prepare for the court case. We launched an internal independent review—the subsequent Boardman review—which is published in full online. We have taken forward its recommendations in full, and have nearly delivered all of them. A steering group, chaired by our chief financial officer, has been tracking implementation.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman feels reassured by my answers. I look forward to continued collaboration with the Scottish Government to the benefit of citizens across our Union.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Against unprecedented global demand for vital equipment, the UK Government secured over 32 billion items of PPE, including for our devolved Administrations. Also against the odds, and against the desire of some on the Opposition Benches who wished to remain in the EU vaccine programme, the UK again successfully secured a world-leading programme. The marketing budget for the vaccine programme was just 0.07% of the budget. Sensibly, it included work to ensure that messaging had the maximum impact in all parts of the United Kingdom to save as many lives as possible. This was rightly done at pace, and should this not be celebrated, rather than be used as a party political point-scoring urgent question by the Opposition SNP?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out just how fantastic the co-operation has been between all parts of our United Kingdom. The UK Government have provided huge support to the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations—that comes in testing capacity; we have helped with PPE; we have obviously helped with the furlough scheme—and, as he says, that should be celebrated, not denigrated.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I think it is worth reiterating that the Government have been found to have acted unlawfully over the contract with Public First. Their attitude is that the rules do not apply to them. Given that the judge found apparent bias, surely this must now be referred to the independent adviser and the Cabinet Secretary. What are they scared of?
I know all too well, on the point made by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), the need to secure PPE for our frontline NHS and social care workers, but while nurses were working in bin bags, others were filling their pockets at the taxpayer’s expense. The Minister quoted the National Audit Office, but the Comptroller and Auditor General said that the evidence shows that
“standards of transparency…were not consistently met”.
Perhaps the Minister can explain today why the National Audit Office found that PestFix, for example, was wrongly added to the high priority lane and awarded over £300 million after a shareholder reminded a senior official that he was a friend of his father-in-law.
The Minister claimed that a full eight-stage process always took place, but the NAO found over 70 contracts awarded before that process even existed. Can she confirm that Ayanda Capital was placed on the VIP list without that process, thanks to an adviser to the International Trade Secretary? Officials admitted that due diligence had not been carried out on Ayanda, and the bar seems to have been lowered in that case.
Mr Speaker, £150 million was spent on entirely useless PPE, so can the Minister confirm how much equipment bought this way was not fit for use? We already know that over £10 billion has been awarded without a competitive tender—for example, the £100 million given to Pharmaceuticals Direct Ltd after lobbying by the Home Secretary, with millions apparently ending up in the hands of her close associate, the “broker” to the deal. Will the Home Secretary be referred to the independent adviser—and if not, why not?
Yesterday, the Minister accepted that private emails were used by other Ministers in the process of awarding contracts, but the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson denied it. Will the Minister ensure that the record is now corrected?
Finally, the Minister promised that all such emails are covered by freedom of information. We have submitted such a request, but how will the former and current Health Ministers be prevented from permanently deleting the emails first? I urge her to refer the whole issue to the Information Commissioner. Surely she can see why only an independent process can restore trust. If Ministers want to be taken seriously by the public, then, quite frankly, they need to stop taking the hit and miss.
Julia Lopez
I have listened over this past year to the criticisms and attacks made by the Opposition and campaign groups on covid contracts, and I take them very seriously. That is why I took the time, when I assumed my role after maternity leave, to understand what happened. I do not think anyone is standing here suggesting that everything went smoothly during the height of pandemic. It did not. A whole series of challenges were faced and shortcomings highlighted. I have now twice set out in some detail the problems that have been described to me, and I have set out what we are doing to resolve them.
Let me go through some of them in relation to PPE. Some 450 people from across Government were moved into the Department of Health and Social Care to become a stand-up virtual team to assist with securing PPE. That team is normally only 21 people strong. That meant a lot of people who did not know each other working remotely on a range of different IT systems, with suppliers they did not know, on product they were not familiar with, in the most highly pressured market of their careers. That has led to lags in contract publication, as paperwork has been very tricky to join up across systems.
Faced with exceptional global demand, the usual vendors in China, which service the central procurement function, very quickly ran out of supply, and the world descended on a few factories in that country to bid for available items. It was in that market context that the Government had to procure with extreme urgency. That was often through direct award of contracts. If we did not do that, we risked missing out on vital supplies. We never ripped up procurement rules. It was a situation of genuine crisis and extreme urgency, where offers had to be accepted or rejected in a matter of hours or days, and it was simply not viable to run the usual procurement timescales.
The effort to secure PPE was herculean and involved setting up a new logistics network from scratch. I have explained in Parliament on a number of occasions that the VIP fast-track lane that has been touted often by the Opposition, was actually a mailbox set up by officials during the height of the pandemic to consider some of the 15,000 offers of assistance to supply PPE. In the early months, leads were coming in a lot faster than they could be processed. When they were rejected, or if they were delayed, people started chasing them through their MPs or through Ministers. To manage that influx of offers, a separate mailbox was set up to handle this area of work and sift credible offers.
I addressed yesterday concerns about private email use and the rules governing it. Government guidance is that official devices, email accounts and comms applications should be used for communicating classified information, but that other forms of electronic communication may be used in the course of conducting Government business. Each Minister is responsible for ensuring that Government information is handled in a secure way. We also set out that where business is conducted on non-official IT, relevant information should be recorded on Government systems, but we are keeping the guidance under review to ensure that it is up to date.
The most important thing to note, as the right hon. Lady does, is that all PPE offers, no matter where they came from, went through the same eight-stage checks. The PPE team compared prices with those obtained in the previous two weeks, to benchmark the competitiveness of those offers. Separate approval and additional justification were required for any offers not within 25% of the average that were considered for possible approval. It is also important to note that of the 493 offers that went through the priority mailbox, I understand that only 47 were taken forward—in other words, 90% were rejected.
There have been judicial reviews in respect of some of those contracts. The case relating to the Department of Health and Social Care looked not at the awarding of contracts, but at the delays in publishing their details. Health Ministers have always been clear that transparency is vital, and the court found that there was no deliberate policy to delay publication. In the judicial review relating to Public First, the court recognised
“that everyone involved was acting under immense pressure and the urgency of the…crisis did not allow time for reflection. The time constraints justified the…derogation from the usual procedures required under PCR 2015. But they did not exonerate the Defendant”—
us—
“from conducting the procurement so as to demonstrate a fair and impartial process of selection.”
We recognised very quickly that there was an issue of process where we could do much better. That is why we investigated what happened to prepare for that court case and launched an internal review into the contracts that were undertaken. Public First has cross-party directors and, as I mentioned, we already have a programme of work in the two Boardman reviews.
I appreciate that throughout the pandemic the Opposition have wanted to raised questions about the contracts. I hope that I can address them as best I can. If there are any questions that the right hon. Lady feels I have not covered, I will come back to her on them.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
With nothing better to do, the Opposition continue to sensationalise the details surrounding a handful of high-value contracts that were subject to the emergency procurement procedures at the outset of the pandemic. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to transparency surrounding the use of taxpayers’ money and that all new contracts over £10,000 are published online for anybody who wishes to see them?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that it is my decision to grant a UQ? You are now questioning my judgment, and I am not going to have my judgment questioned.
The other thing to say is that I do feel sorry for the Minister being set up. I am sorry that Minister Gove was not here to take some of the questions, because most of them are named for him, but this House will not be taken for granted. When statements continue to be made outside the House, I will continue to grant UQs, so let’s get used to it. If the Government do not want to come here, I will ensure that they are heard here.
Julia Lopez
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I appreciate your zeal and I think you are right.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We have tried throughout to be transparent, but I have set out some of the very good reasons why it has been difficult sometimes to publish the contracts in a timely way. This has been a very complex process where we have had to surge teams at very short notice and go back through all the paperwork, looking across different IT systems across different Departments. That has been a challenge that I have tried to address, as has the Department of Health and Social Care. My understanding is that all PPE contracts are now transparently published. We are working through them all in relation to comms and have a programme of work under way to make sure that we have transparent publication. I completely agree that it is important that we offer reassurances to the public on how taxpayers’ funds are used.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Government were able to award contracts using their high priority lane because this House gave them the power to do so. We did it, effectively, on trust. Will the Minister now repay the trust that this House placed in the Government by publishing the details not just of the contracts that were put through that high priority lane, but of those who introduced the contractors to the Government, the basis on which it was thought appropriate to put them through the high-priority lane and the economic outcomes of those decisions?
Julia Lopez
I thank the right hon. Member for his inquiries. As I say, 47 went through the high-priority lane, and discussions are under way on the extent to which we can be transparent about that because of commercial sensitivities. However, as I said, all PPE contracts have now been transparently published.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Our vaccine programme is a fantastic example of how the best of the British science industry and Government have worked together to tackle the virus. Does my hon. Friend agree that without the expertise, willingness to take risk and innovation of our private sector, the success of the vaccine programme would not have been possible?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is quite right to point out that we absolutely need commercial expertise in times of pandemic and any similar crises that may come along. As we look at how we can do things better on procurement in the future, we must guard against crowding out external expertise and taking an overly cautious approach to risk. While I absolutely accept that there are questions to be asked after the event, the priority in times of crisis must always be delivering on the ground, and that is what we have always sought to do.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s tone in coming to the House in that she has acknowledged that mistakes were made and that the Cabinet Office has accepted both Boardman reviews and the National Audit Office’s recommendations on procurement. However, we are in a whole different ball game when members of her Cabinet are having private email exchanges and neither we nor officials know what is in them. She says that the Cabinet Office is reviewing guidance. Is it not time that she just said, “This must stop,” because nobody—not the National Audit Office or officials—can see what is in those conversations, and that is a very real concern for the taxpayer?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady, who has done tremendous work through the Public Accounts Committee in scrutinising this area. Sometimes I think she has been leading the opposition—not the Opposition—on this. It is important that we focus on where we had problems and the very genuine concerns that need to be addressed. She raises matters in relation to emails. I cannot comment on email conversations that I have not seen.
Julia Lopez
But those are relevant only when officials are asked to take any action, and that is the point at which official process and procedure come into play. I know the hon. Lady does not want to listen to this, but that is why the eight-stage process that officials undertook is so important; that is the aspect that should reassure the public that there are procedures that ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent correctly.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Normal contract procedures for PPE take months to navigate—months that patients and staff simply did not have last year—so criticising the Government for abbreviating procedures to save time and lives seems a poor use of hindsight. Is my hon. Friend aware that exactly the same decision to abbreviate processes in the name of speed was taken by Labour in Wales and by the SNP in Scotland, the only difference being that the SNP wanted to suspend freedom of information requests at the same time?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is right that the devolved Administrations also use regulation 32 to procure in an emergency. It is important to note that the Government are dissatisfied with the procedures at our disposal. That is why, in our procurement Green Paper, we are looking at what measures we can take to procure with greater transparency and success in times of crisis to give us a better option between a full-fat procurement, which takes too long, or a direct award, which raises concerns about transparency.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. Let us call this out for what it is: a gross misuse of public money. The shady deal to award a half-a-million-pound covid contract to Ministers’ friends at Public First is yet another example of Tories putting Tory interests first. Given that focus groups were held in Wales, did the Secretary of State for Wales consent to the decision to use the Public First contract for political research purposes?
Julia Lopez
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. As I said, we do not use public money for political campaigning purposes.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing the urgent question.
The Minister seems to be auditioning for the role of Minister for the Cabinet Office; I do not know whether he has been kidnapped but he does not seem to be about at the moment—but my hon. Friend is doing very well. Is this urgent question not an opportunity to highlight the fact that if the Government had not used emergency powers, we would not have established the world-leading vaccination programmes, which have saved not just hundreds of thousands but probably millions of lives across the globe? They used the emergency powers to develop the vaccine programme, rather than go through the red tape and bureaucracy that the European Union did and did not develop a programme.
Julia Lopez
I assure my hon. Friend that I am not auditioning for that position; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not been kidnapped. He is in Scotland, as part of our efforts to make sure that we are less Whitehall-centric as a government—we have offices now in Glasgow.
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of being able to take sensible risks that save lives in times of crisis, which is what we did in a number of these areas, and that was the right decision to make.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The question is not about the emergency use of funds to buy lifesaving vaccines and equipment; it is about the deliberate misappropriation of those funds for political canvassing purposes—it cannot be disguised as anything more than that. It is noticeable that none of the fake outrage from Conservative Members has attempted to address that question as yet.
If the Minister is so concerned about knowing what Scotland’s attitude to the Union is, may I point her to the biggest opinion survey ever conducted in Scotland? In May, the people of Scotland voted by a majority for pro-independence parties. The Scottish Parliament has a pro-independence majority yet again. Does she accept that that is a proper demonstration of the will of the people of Scotland to be rid of this corrupt Union, once and for all?
Julia Lopez
There was a proper demonstration of the will of the Scottish people when they had their referendum on Scottish independence and made their views clear. Interestingly, Scottish National party Members never seem to accept that.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this was not a PPE contract; it was a contract about communications and the important role they played in managing the pandemic at a time when we did not have the vaccine, the testing capacity that we wanted or other measures that we needed to tackle the pandemic. Communications, in this context, were extremely important in making sure the public understood the behaviours they needed adopt to keep themselves safe.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Ministers are not actually in charge of checking contracts—the civil service is. Does my hon. Friend agree that any contract, whether urgent or not, always requires due diligence by the civil service, even after the decision, and that that happens within every Department? I find accusations of cronyism to be normally very wrong indeed—does she agree?
Julia Lopez
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I do agree. As I set out, there are a number of assurances the public should take from the way in which contracts are managed and handled; these things are quite separate from Ministers, which should provide the public with the comfort they want.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is clear that nothing is clear about the way this Government are procuring goods and services with public money, and it is these dodgy deals that anger my constituents who play by the rules while government fails to. Following the National Audit Office report and the Boardman review’s recommendations on process and practice, process in governance, and conflict of interest and bias, what progress has the Minister made in implementing those recommendations? Will she publish an update on the Government’s actions and place it in the House of Commons Library? In auditing these contracts, will she ensure that they have fulfilled what they promised to do?
Julia Lopez
Yes, I believe that the Public Accounts Committee will be updated on the second Boardman report in July. With regard to the first Boardman report on communications contracts, we are working through all the recommendations. I believe we are up to 20 of 24, but we will endeavour to complete that process by the end of the year.[Official Report, 12 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 2MC.]
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
From the onset of the pandemic, the contracts we have signed have allowed us to procure billions of items of PPE and secure vital lifesaving equipment at a time of unprecedented global demand. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had dithered and delayed, if we had not explored every possible opportunity, and if we had not tried to take advantage of every olive branch that was offered, the public would never have forgiven us and the Opposition would be sitting here today saying exactly the opposite: that we did not act quickly enough?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I believe that the Opposition asked us to strain every sinew at the time of the pandemic, and that is what we did.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
Can the Minister clarify the exact total of taxpayers’ money abhorrently used to conduct political research throughout the pandemic?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. There was no money used on political campaigning.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for the answers she has given thus far. At the start of the pandemic, we were competing across the world for the supply of PPE and other lifesaving equipment and for developing vaccines. It is quite clear that the Government had to make instant decisions on that procurement, competing against other nations. The key now is learning the lessons that come from that process, so will she undertake to ensure that there is a full review of the emergency procedures that may be needed, in case there is another pandemic or a requirement for us to set aside normal procurement rules?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is quite right to set out some of the challenges we faced at the height of the pandemic. When it comes to procuring PPE, for instance, we were competing with every other country in the world for PPE from just a few factories in China, and that was extremely difficult. Frankly, if we had dithered and delayed, we would not have secured the supplies we needed. In terms of learning the lessons that he wishes us to learn, I can assure him that we are already doing that. That is why we conducted the Boardman 1 and 2 reviews, and the National Audit Office has looked over these matters in fine detail. The public inquiry into covid will begin next spring.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It has been revealed that a handful of Conservative party donors who gave the party £8.2 million have won Government covid contracts worth £881 million. It was also recently revealed that just three days after a Conservative billionaire donor was made a Lord—with the Prime Minister overruling his own appointments watchdog to push that decision through—the donor gave the party half a million pounds. What does the Minister say to my constituents who ask why the pandemic has meant growing poverty for them, while for Tory donors it has been an opportunity to line their pockets through dodgy deals?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her concerns, and I wish to assure her that a link to the Conservative party was not one of the criteria that needed to be fulfilled when those PPE contracts were being undertaken.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]
The National Audit Office report on PPE procurement made it clear that there was a lack of transparency in the documentation relating to key procurement decisions. We now know about the routine use of private emails to conduct Government business, which raises the question of whether the NAO could not find all the documentation because it was hidden away in private email accounts. Can the Minister now give us an assurance that all relevant private emails were handed over to the NAO as part of its investigations? If she cannot give us that assurance, can she ensure that all those private emails will now be passed over to the NAO?
Julia Lopez
In relation to the challenges we faced in trying to transparently publish all the contracts, I have set out some of the reasons for them. It was partly because a team of 450 people had to be surged across Government, and they were all working on different IT systems. Going back and trying to look at all the documentation relating to PPE has been a real challenge, and those challenges have been acknowledged in the various court cases that have been brought. I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman with regard to the emails that, in so far as freedom of information requests are made, they will be looked at in the relevant way.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Every week, SNP Members come to this House with the sole focus of tearing our country apart, while every week this Government are focused on delivering on the British people’s priorities and building back better from the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that if the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) wants to use this time to explore conspiracy theories, he should instead go and look for the Loch Ness monster?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question about the Loch Ness monster whose existence I can neither confirm nor deny. He is right to highlight the fantastic ways in which our Union has worked together during the pandemic, whether that be on vaccine procurement, on the schemes that have been run out by the Treasury, or on some of the testing capacity that we have provided. We should not overlook the fantastic Union story that we have seen during this pandemic.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is absolutely gobsmacking that, in the middle of a pandemic, Tory Ministers secretly redirected funds from an emergency covid contract to carry out political polling to benefit the Conservative party and its Unionist cause. Following the humiliation of the High Court case, will the Minister now commit to a full public inquiry into this gross misuse of public money? Does she take any responsibility for this failure and will she apologise for it?
Julia Lopez
As I have set out on numerous occasions this afternoon, that was not political campaigning; it was important work that was being undertaken as part of our response to the pandemic.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Opposition parties are accusing the Government of corruption—of deliberate and systematic corruption. They are claiming that Ministers used the biggest peacetime challenge that this country has ever faced for the simple purpose of enriching a few distantly connected contacts. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General put it in answering the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) a few weeks ago, this is an absurd charge. It is simply unbelievable. Everybody knows it; we know it, they know it and the public know it. It is a conspiracy theory on the level of the anti-vax campaign. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the businesses that stepped up to supply the NHS with what it needed rather than smearing them?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the importance of what business achieved with the Government in relation to the pandemic. Some fantastic commercial expertise has been brought into Government. One thing we want to do is to set up a secondments unit to make sure that we can get that private sector expertise into Government when it is needed. There are also number of other initiatives, such as civilian reserves, that can be used so that we can get that expertise as and when we need it in times of crisis.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, here is how it works. Lord Bethell, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, held a private undeclared meeting with Abingdon Health, which then won a £85 million contract. Andrew Feldman, the former chair of the Tory party, became an unpaid adviser to Lord Bethell and he managed to lobby and get a client a PPE contract for £23 million. We have had David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, lobbying the Government direct. We know that the Minister for the Cabinet Office was found in court to have acted unlawfully with apparent bias with regards to an award to Public First. That is why we need a full proper inquiry not just into the awarding of contracts, but into the lobbying that goes on in the background for companies that have no track record in delivering the kinds of contracts that were awarded.
Julia Lopez
I set out the reasons for the court case and what the judgment actually said, rather than what the hon. Gentleman is implying that it said. It was in relation to some procedural issues that we have addressed via the Boardman recommendations.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that what the people of this country want to see is all politicians coming together to get this country back on its feet, rather than the party political squabbling around PPE contracts that were absolutely necessary and needed at speed to save lives? Let us put people first.
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have already said in this Chamber, tremendous work has been done with every corner of the UK and every devolved Administration, whether that is the vaccine programme, the furlough scheme or the rapid increase in testing capacity.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Has the Minister read the allegations made by Dominic Cummings that Ministers and officials would take procurement decisions and then subsequently a meeting would be arranged to pretend to retake them and go through the paperwork properly? Can she confirm that such behaviour would be completely unacceptable and that any investigation is taking place to determine whether these allegations are true?
Julia Lopez
I am afraid that I do not know in relation to the private meetings that Dominic Cummings had when he was in Government, but I know that he has set out concerns about our response to procurement in relation to getting the wrong answers after the event. I think he is concerned about whether we then create too much process around important decisions that need to be made in the heat of the moment, and he is right to set out those concerns. We need to make sure that our Green Paper on procurement makes us have better decision-making processes in times of crisis that can be properly scrutinised.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) [V]
Last week at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), bragged that the Government were
“unleashing the potential of our whole country”—
countries—
“by backing British industry”—[Official Report, 21 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 672-673.]
He derided China for “trade-distorting practices” and dismissed trade deals with China. That all sounds good, except it is just not true. Today in a covid briefing, the Government’s position on the US Food and Drug Agency judgment that the Innova tests were deadly was that it is down to an overreliance on the manufacturer’s data, and that the tests are being tested at Porton Down to disprove the Chinese manufacturer’s own data that they are unsafe. All the while, the UK diagnostic industry across the countries of the UK have been utterly betrayed. Can the Minister tell me: why are this Government using trade-distorting practices to prop up discredited Innova lateral flow devices made on the cheap in China but at massive expense to the UK? Why are UK diagnostic contracts and the hundreds of jobs that Lord Bethell—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may shake his head or his hands, but he ought to realise that Members have the right to be heard, and not just him for the length of time that he thinks is appropriate; I will make the decision on that.
Julia Lopez
I am enjoying your zest today, Mr Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman raised with me the importance of onshore manufacturing capacity in Westminster Hall last week. I have asked for a briefing on the issue and shall get back to him, because he raised an important issue about the extent to which we have key manufacturing capacity in this country. Project Defend in the Department for International Trade aims to ensure that we have the capacity that we need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister and the Government for their massive and positive response to covid-19, and for a vaccine roll-out that is second to none. Has the Minister made an assessment of the sustainability of the Government’s use of emergency covid-19 contracts with large firms, and will she confirm whether the contracts have been beneficial to the UK, given the potential and alleged anomalies that occurred at their procurement?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight how fantastically the devolved Administrations have worked with central Government on some of the critical issues that have faced us during the pandemic. He raised the issue of large firms. One hope in our procurement Green Paper is that our procurement reforms will make it much easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for key Government contracts.
Angela Rayner
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last 24 hours, we have had two urgent questions; the Minister for the Cabinet Office has not appeared, although the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), has done her best. In the last hour, we have heard media reports that No. 10 has confirmed that Lord Bethell used his private email address in regard to procurement. I seek your advice as to how we get clarity on this matter, because there have been misleading reports over the last 24 hours. How can we get an independent inquiry so that we actually get to the facts of the case?
Mr Speaker
Obviously, I am not aware of what has just been announced. If we are going to criticise, there needs to be a substantive motion, but the right hon. Lady is asking about the internal arrangements. Her point is now on the record; I hope that people have been listening to her request. We will take it from there. I am sure that this will not be the end of the matter being raised. I know that she will use her best endeavours and offices to ensure that the issue continues to be addressed.
We are going to suspend the House for two minutes so that the necessary arrangements can be made before the next business.
International Travel
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Order. I wish to make a short statement before we take the next urgent question. Last Thursday evening, the Government announced changes to the countries listed on the green and red travel lists. They also announced that they intended that fully vaccinated UK residents returning from amber list countries would not have to isolate from later in the summer. These are important announcements. They should be made to this House first. The fact that Transport Ministers were answering oral questions in the Chamber that morning only strengthens the case.
Although I do not have to explain my reasons for allowing the urgent question, in this case I want to say to those on the Government Benches that if Ministers choose to make important announcements outside this Chamber first, they must not be surprised that I will grant urgent questions on those matters. In fact, I will just continue to grant them on the basis that there may be a statement, because it seems that this Chamber is being ridden over roughshod. I will continue to make sure that this House gets an opportunity to scrutinise the Government, but it would be better for all concerned if the Government simply followed their own ministerial code and made important announcements to this House, to which Members are elected to represent their constituents and to ensure that Ministers and Secretaries of State can be scrutinised with questions—not via the media, but via MPs.
I call Jim McMahon to ask the urgent question.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government’s plans for international travel.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
After 15 months of restrictions and lockdowns, I know that everybody in the House is determined to get this pandemic behind us, so that we might finally begin to think about returning to some sort of normality. Decisions over how to control our borders during these unprecedented times are of course never easy. In everything we do, the overwhelming priority is to protect the public and the hard-won gains that have been made.
Last week, in recognition of the hugely successfully vaccination programme, we were able to confirm that in the future, when I will certainly return to the House, fully vaccinated people will be able to avoid quarantine when they return from countries on the amber list.
I want to be realistic with the House: this is a complicated policy that requires time to work through. First, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has yet to opine on whether children should be part of a vaccination programme. They are not at present, and we must resolve how children would therefore be treated under a programme that enabled people to travel without vaccinations.
Next is the question of what to do for people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons or are perhaps on one of the non-standard vaccine trials. That accounts for around half a million people and we need to work out what to do in that respect.
There is also the question of how to recognise vaccine status at ports and airports. That is easier for people who have been vaccinated in the UK, because the main NHS app—I should stress that I am not talking about the test and trace app—can already display a person’s vaccine status, but it is less easy to prove for someone coming from overseas, particularly if their country has a paper-based system.
As a result of all this work, we will announce to the House when we are ready to make these decisions in order to bring this system into place. It will most likely be phased in for UK residents first.
As has been said, we have confirmed changes to the traffic light system, which take place tonight, at 4 am. That will change the countries that are on the red and the green lists. There are some complications with establishing the list on a UK-wide basis, including with the devolved Administrations. Once the decisions have been made, it is also very difficult not to have them escape from the various different Administrations, so I apologise to the House for not always being able to get here first before I start to read of them in the newspapers. In this particular case, I heard them instantaneously—or within an hour or so, I should say—from the devolved Administrations elsewhere in the UK, meaning that the story was already out there. Malta, Madeira, the Balearic islands and several UK overseas territories and Caribbean islands will be added to the green list, while a further six countries will move to the red category, as we continue to adapt our system.
Our border regime is one of the toughest in the world and I know, from chairing meetings of the G7 Transport Ministers, that it is closely tracked and in some cases followed by other countries. We are now focused on the long-term issue of how to keep our country safe while getting international travel back up and running. These decisions are not easy and will not be enhanced by simplistic calls to stick countries on either a red list or a green list without providing the level of detail that the amber list helps to provide. In comparison, this Government are taking a cautious, evidence-based approach. I will return to the House with more information once we are aware of the details.
Jim McMahon
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. As you pointed out, it was unacceptable that the Government were not willing to come to the House to make the announcement when the traffic light system was reviewed last week. Thank you so much for your robust defence of Parliament on this matter.
Passengers and the industry want to see a clear plan of action, supported by transparent data and with measured interventions to balance the urgent need to keep our borders safe with the desire to support aviation and tourism.
First, on data and country-by-country assessment, I urge the Secretary of State to publish not only the decision-making criteria for the traffic light system but, importantly, the analysis that underpins it.
We have been pushing for the Government to show international leadership, but so far they have failed to step up. Why will they not bring forward concrete plans for an international vaccine passport that will be accepted by key destination countries?
International co-operation is key to getting travel back up and running again, yet the Prime Minister missed a golden opportunity at the G7, including with the US. What progress has been made on reaching an agreement to see the safe return of transatlantic travel?
As much as we want to see more countries added to the green list, we also want to see a robust red list. Given that the easing of restrictions has been delayed throughout the country, will the Secretary of State now commit to reviewing the decision not to place India on the red list, so that lessons can be learned?
Labour’s position is clear: we have set out a sectoral deal and a simplified red and green list, supported by clear country-by-country assessment that shows the clear direction of travel. The Government also promised a sectoral deal, so when can the industry expect to see that promised sectoral deal? In the early days of this pandemic the public were willing to support the Government as they learnt on the job but, frankly, patience has run out. It is important that action is taken, and taken now.
Grant Shapps
First, it is worth saying that I keep hearing the hon. Gentleman calling for the data to be published. For his ease, I have been to the gov.uk website and checked it for him. The JCVI and Public Health England do indeed publish their methodology and the data behind it for each of these countries. It is already published. For the sake of the time of the House, I will not run through it, but it is there for him to see.
The hon. Gentleman calls for a passport that could be used for people who are double-vaccinated, yet at the same time his policy is to put every single country in the red list. That would mean that somebody who was able to visit a dying relative in an amber list country would now have the cost and expense of returning to Government quarantine in order to just go on that mercy mission. I think that what he is suggesting is quite cruel.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the progress on the US-UK working group. I can confirm that it took place for the first time last Thursday and progress is being made. That is an officials-level meeting and they will say more when they are ready to. There is a whole series of complexities to resolve. For example, the US does not currently recognise AstraZeneca because AstraZeneca has not applied for the licence. On the other side, we do not have any particular system to recognise vaccine status from the United States, because it does not have a digitised system, as we do with our NHS—it has 50 separate systems—so there are complexities.
India has been discussed many times, but I remind the hon. Gentleman again that it went on our red list a week before it became a variant of interest and two weeks before it became a variant of concern, so it is simply not the case that it was not already on the red list. Even when it was on the amber list, people had to take a test before they came here. They had to take a test when they got here, on day two and on day eight. They had to quarantine. It is worth looking at those facts.
The hon. Gentleman again calls for the red and green list. He wants to scrap the amber list. He wants to simplify it, no doubt before claiming that we should publish yet more detail, but it simply does not make sense. He cannot stand up and call for further support for airlines and the aviation sector while deliberately trying to ensure that pretty much every person who comes to this country has to go to Government quarantine hotels. It simply does not stack up.
The hon. Gentleman asks about support for the aviation and travel sectors. They have indeed been at the forefront of this pandemic and £7 billion of support is being provided. We are continuing to do our bit. But the best support of all that we can provide is to get international travel running again. That means not taking all the countries in the amber list and sticking them in the red list.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, for giving us this opportunity to scrutinise. You have constituents who are impacted and they should know that you have given them a voice in this place.
I also thank the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for giving us this opportunity. I disagree with his suggestion that we turn the amber list to red. I believe it should be turned to green, because we have a successful vaccination programme and our NHS app. We know that the Secretary of State is pushing for that to happen later in the summer, and therein lies my question. For the domestic restrictions being eased, we have a road map with data and dates. For international travel, can we have the equivalent—a flight path—so we know what is going to happen, when and by what measure? Perhaps I could ask him to give us a little more detail now, but also consider whether he would be willing to give a little more certainty to industry and passengers alike.
Grant Shapps
I will certainly be very pleased to return to this House with further details as soon as next month. I explained in my opening remarks that there are quite a number of complexities to do with how we treat children and younger people who have not yet had the opportunity to have two vaccinations. Although we will have everybody on a single vaccination, promised by 19 July, there will still be significant numbers who would not be able to travel under that system, so there are a lot of fairness issues to resolve too. However, like my hon. Friend, I share the absolute desire to return international travel as soon as we practically can to something as close as possible to normality, while recognising that it is important that we ensure that variants of concern are properly monitored and not brought into this country. One of the problems that we have is that no other country in the world sequences the genome at the rate that we do, which means that it is sometimes very difficult to tell what is happening in other countries, so we sometimes have to be cautious, but I will return to this House.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Aviation is the hardest-hit sector, according to the Office for National Statistics. One third of the 6,000 jobs based at Glasgow airport and countless more in the supply chain are gone, a proportion that is common in the sector. In business travel, 60% of workers have gone and of those who remain, 80% are on furlough, and that is the key point: hundreds of thousands of jobs have gone while there is a job retention scheme in place.
This is the 36th time I have asked about support for the aviation sector since the start of the pandemic, back in the day when the Secretary of State was boasting of saving Flybe and the Chancellor was promising a sector-specific deal. With many parts of Europe now wary of the UK delta variant outbreak, five bleak winters in a row beckon for the sector. Are the Government finally considering keeping their word on grant support and extending its limited and capped business rates support to at least match the duration of the unlimited cover in Scotland? Crucially, is the Secretary of State lobbying the Treasury to extend furlough for the sector? Finally, does the clinical advice given to the Government fully support these decisions on double vaccines for travellers and travel to amber list countries?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who often speaks up for aviation, given the airport-constituency connection that he has. I point out again that we have provided billions of pounds of support for the aviation sector, including to the Scottish aviation sector, through money that has gone from the furlough programme, for example.
The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, and I fear I may have to redirect him in some cases to his own Scottish Government, because I have the Scottish airports constantly on the line to me complaining about the actions of the Scottish Government, who seem to do everything they possibly can to make it harder for airlines and airports to see a route to a recovery. That said, there was a strong degree of work together to bring in the latest changes to the traffic light system.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
If we do not have a meaningful summer of transatlantic operations, it will cost the UK economy an estimated £2.5 billion and mean up to 52,000 jobs are lost, so may I encourage my right hon. Friend to make sure that we press for that UK-US taskforce on opening up international travel to conclude as soon as possible?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend, who has done a great deal to support the aviation sector, is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the President announced the working group. As I mentioned before, it has already met, and it is working on the details of trying to reopen international travel. We are faced with a section 212(f) executive order that was brought in by the previous American Administration and has not been rescinded by the current one. We need to see that removed, in addition to sorting some of the complexities of accepting vaccine status both ways around. Our officials are working on that at pace, and I look forward to further developments.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that restrictions on UK citizens’ travel is not just from the rules from his own Department, but from the entry requirements imposed by some of our international partners? Malta, for example, may well be on our green list, but it will not allow in anybody over the age of 12 who has not received both jabs. As he will know, no one under the age of 18 in the UK can receive both jabs yet. There are reports this morning that the negotiations on the UK-US air bridge have faltered because of concerns in the US about rising rates of the delta variant in the UK. Can the Secretary of State confirm what conversations he is having with the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about attempts to combat the rise of the delta variant in this country, so that we can give greater confidence to our international partners and enable them to relax some of their restrictions?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be concerned about the delta variant, but the reason we know about the delta variant in this country is that we sequence around 50% of all the positive PCR cases we pick up. No country in the world is getting close to that. It is just a few per cent. in, for example, France, Germany and elsewhere, so I suspect that some of the delta variant is simply knowing about the delta variant being present. We are working with partners internationally to encourage more to sequence the variant and then upload it to the GISAID website, which is internationally recognised, so that everyone can see what is going on. By doing so, we will be able to have a more transparent system to get aviation going faster.
The hon. Lady also asked about conversations. I have already spoken to the new Health Secretary. We are both very keen to open this up, but we must do so in a way that is as safe as possible.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
This morning I caught up with owners Heidi and Andy from Oasis Travel, an independent travel agent in Tunstall, to hear what they need from my right hon. Friend to help them to recover from the pandemic, and the key thing was clarity. So will he reassure Heidi and Andy from Oasis Travel that we can make the guidance more simple and clear, giving confidence both to travel agents and the residents of Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke about the rules when going for a long overdue summer break?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about clarity on this. That is why a traffic light system—followed, as I have mentioned, by other countries; France, for example, has introduced one since we introduced ours—makes sense. Everyone understands red, amber and green. We have talked about the desire to bring in a system that also uses the benefits of double vaccination that will overlay that. For the benefit of his constituents at Oasis Travel, we are looking not only at the country but at individuals’ status in order to provide greater clarity and to be able to open up as much as possible for summer.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The travel sector, particularly the business travel sector, sees the reopening of US-UK travel as vital to being viable. Will the Secretary of State update the House on who sits on the US-UK travel taskforce, when it will publish its recommendations, and whether the reports of concerns over the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in the press this week will have any impact?
Grant Shapps
Yes, I can provide a bit more detail. The group is chaired at Cabinet Office level and the equivalent in the United States. It was, as the hon. Lady will know, set up by the President and the Prime Minister at the G7. There has not been a specific date provided for publishing the group’s work, but it meets on a weekly basis. I urge her and others to discount what they read in the newspapers. I did not recognise the output that I saw in the stories this morning other than that it is true that there are issues that I have mentioned at the Dispatch Box about recognition in both directions. These are very real problems. There are 50 states in America and they all use different systems for showing whether people are fully vaccinated—to throw another one into the pot. However, we are working very closely together and the desire is there between the US and the UK to normalise travel again.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]
The Government’s intention to scrap quarantine restrictions for fully vaccinated people arriving from amber list countries is very welcome, but can I stress to my right hon. Friend how important it is to have clarity over the timings now instead of later in the summer? Ideally we need this in place at the start of the school holidays to give families the confidence to book and to ensure that it has the maximum impact in helping the travel sector to recover. I do not have to tell him that if it is delayed for too long, the summer for the travel sector will be lost, and that will have huge financial implications for the sector.
Grant Shapps
I do recognise the desire to see the system clarified. I went to some lengths in my opening remarks to explain that we have some issues that we need to resolve, including what the JCVI is going to recommend when it finishes opining over whether children should be vaccinated, and, without knowing the answer to that, what alternative system would be in place. As Members have mentioned, we have already seen Malta, for example, putting in place its own restrictions on children at the particular age of 12. There are complexities to deal with. However, I hear what my hon. Friend and others have said about the desire for clarity. I will return to this House once we have made progress and make sure that he is here to hear it first.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
UK airlines, excluding the wider aviation sector, have announced over 30,000 job cuts so far, and that is before we even consider the wider supply chain in the aviation sector. British Airways and General Electric are based in my constituency and are major employers for Pontypridd and Taff-Ely. Both have had to make significant job cuts in difficult circumstances, and I fear that there could be more on the horizon. Labour has consistently called for a sectoral deal that secures jobs and protects the aviation supply chain. Thousands of jobs depend on it. Why will not Ministers give aviation the support that they promised?
Grant Shapps
I have to say, we are providing £7 billion of support. The hon. Lady says that the Opposition have consistently called for support, but that is not the case. The former shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), said:
“we can no longer accept public funds paying for projects that make the shift to zero”
carbon harder. In other words, she was not prepared to support the aviation sector, as we have done. [Interruption.] It is on record. I understand the perspective of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and I agree with her as it happens, but the Opposition’s policy has been all over the place.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Travel companies in my constituency such as Full Circle and Comfy Class are understandably keen to have more countries on the green list. I appreciate that there is a balance, because I have also had emails from constituents concerned that if we move too quickly, we could end up with further restrictions here. However, will my right hon. Friend reassure the companies in my constituency and elsewhere that it is still his aspiration to get as many countries on the green list as soon as he can, providing it is safe to do so?
Grant Shapps
That is absolutely the case. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and the whole House that I wish to see travel reopened—I am the Secretary of State for Transport; I want to see transport operating. No one comes into this job to try to close down travel. We have to be realistic about the pandemic, which is global in nature and is still running at record rates around the world beyond our shores. It is tempting to think it is over because we have managed to vaccinate such a high proportion of our own population, but no other major economy has done the same thing. However, I can provide my hon. Friend with the reassurance that we are moving on this as fast as we possibly can. Subject to the expert advice, I am looking forward to working with my right hon. Friend the new Health Secretary to move things along.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
What I picked up on a recent visit to Heathrow with the Home Affairs Committee was that the Government always seem to be behind the curve. They always seems to be having to deal with the current crisis and not thinking ahead to what the next crisis will be in travel, particularly at the borders. We have heard lots of reasons today why it is all very difficult for the Secretary of State to come with a plan, but can he give a firm date for when he will have a clear plan, which is what the public are really calling for, along with the travel industry?
Grant Shapps
I hear the calls for clarity, and I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying, but is she suggesting that we should leave children behind this summer? Should people who have not been vaccinated be able to travel? How would she know whether an inward traveller coming here from another country had been vaccinated if we do not have a digital certificate from them? These are not abstract questions; they are real questions that have to be added to what the scientists know or do not know about the ability of somebody with coronavirus to get it again and/or carry it—just ask Nick Robinson what happened to him. Make no mistake: I want to get things opened up as quickly as possible—that is my intention and desire—but we cannot throw caution to the wind and risk going backwards by bringing in a new variant of concern because of all the calls to simply ignore the facts.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for that last answer, and I accept it. However, I went to Gibraltar for the weekend of 11 to 14 June and was astonished by the hoops I had to go through on return from the green Rock. I had to take three tests and fill out a very complex passenger locator form to come home. Given that nearly 49% of our population have now been double vaccinated, will my right hon. Friend have a look at reducing the cost, the bureaucracy and the time wasting that occurs when people return to the UK from even the safest countries, such as the Rock of Gibraltar, which is a green area?
Grant Shapps
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that he should not have needed to take three tests. Returning from a green country, he would simply be required to fill in his passenger locator form, take a pre-departure test and then a single test on day two. That is used for sequencing the genome, which we have spoken about a lot—I know that other countries are not as interested as we have been in that subject.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about driving down the cost. I was pleased to see on the website yesterday that there are now costs in the £20, £30 and £40 range, rather than the very high costs previously. We have now organised the website so that people can search by region and cost, in order to buy a package that suits their pocket. I agree with him about driving down the costs and driving out the bureaucracy, linking up the passenger locator form with the gates, so that when he comes through the border, he is not stopped specifically because of his travel.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Mark Tanzer, of ABTA, told the Treasury Committee that 44% of ABTA members anticipate more redundancies as furlough tapers off. This is an avoidable harm, so may I ask the Transport Committee what conversations he has had with the Chancellor on continuing furlough at the full 80% rate, at least for travel and tourism?
Grant Shapps
I always have ongoing conversations and that is one thing that has led to furlough being available—and not only that, but a scheme that has, in essence, paid the business rates for all the major airports in this country, apart from the very largest two or three. That has been extended again for a further six months as well. The best way we can get this resolved is to get travel going again, and our level of vaccination means that that can happen; thanks to the UK Government, everybody throughout the UK is enjoying the highest level of vaccination of any major economy.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Our historic vaccine programme has meant that we have been able to begin safely reopening international travel, and I must add that my constituency has truly led the way on the vaccination programme lately, and I must thank all those involved for that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right, however, that we take a cautious approach, so that we do not jeopardise the enormous sacrifices and gains made by the British people in the past year? Of course, that will mean that next year we can travel safely for the World cup, as, I hope, the rightful winners of the euros this year.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the only caveat I would add is that I am really keen to see us open up—we want to see it happen and we are going to put all the measures in place to try to do that. One frustration I think we all feel in this House is that because we have managed to get ourselves vaccinated and because we are sequencing the genome to such an extent, it is tempting to think that the entire world is already there. Sadly, that is not the case; we are waiting for others to catch up. So she is right to say that we need to take a cautious approach, but none the less it is one that will start to see benefits for this country and people who want to travel.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The threat to the travel and tourism industry is very real. Just this week, I met constituents who normally work on aircraft but now have either been furloughed or in some cases made redundant several months ago and they are extremely concerned about the ongoing future of the industry. So it is regrettable that the Transport Secretary should seek to misrepresent the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) in terms of recognising an increase in the number of nations on the green list, seeking clarification of the system and calling for international co-operation on vaccine passports, which can give real certainty to the industry and confidence to holidaymakers, so that we can try to save some of these crucial jobs in our industry.
Grant Shapps
On the contrary, I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Oldham West has had to say from the Front Bench. A few days ago, he was challenged about how many countries should go on to the green list and he said, “Well, from our point of view it has got to be about the science.” He said that he cannot give an exact number and that we have to take the expert advice—what on earth does he think we have been doing all these months?
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
My constituency has a lot of aerospace manufacturing, which is suffering the knock-back from the lack of international travel. At a recent meeting with pilots from my constituency, I was told that the additions to the green list will up their business to only 10% of their capacity, so they really are struggling. They asked whether we could avoid any last-minute changes to policy and give people as much notice as possible. I need to stress that they were asking for a date on which double-vaccinated people would be able to travel a lot more freely. I said I would pass those messages on, which I have done.
Grant Shapps
I am grateful for the direct message. Sadly, the pandemic and the virus do not give us much advance notice; we often find that a country is on the green list and we need to move it, as we saw with Portugal and Spain with the travel corridors last year. One thing that we have done to provide a little more forward guidance is use the green watch list, the purpose of which is to help my hon. Friend’s constituents to see when a country may be a bit closer to the amber border and when they would therefore want to be more aware. I hope that that provides a bit of additional guidance, but I will return to the House next month with more details of what double vaccination can mean for people and for the travel industry.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has acknowledged that this summer will not be typical with regard to international travel. Regional airports such as Newcastle International rely on the summer season to generate the bulk of their revenue and tide them over during the quiet periods in the winter. Will the Secretary of State look particularly at regional airports this winter? What support can they be given to ensure that not generating revenue over the summer does not lead them into difficulty later in the year, once international travel has opened up?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the struggle for regional airports in particular. They do not have pockets as deep as those of some of the very large airports, which of course are also struggling. They have had their business rates paid, as in the case of Newcastle, for the entirety of the pandemic so far; that has been extended for a further six months and they have also had the furlough scheme and various loans available. The best thing that we can do for them is get travel reopened, and that is everything we are focused on now.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Over the weekend, we had the full panoply of the Stasi state with its pettifogging prying into people’s private lives, including show trials, denunciation, hidden cameras and inevitable hypocrisy and rule-breaking. Like the Secretary of State, I would like a lot more international travel and I am very relaxed, but as the Government seem to panic at the slightest rise in infections, when the Secretary of State argues his case in the Cabinet, will he please not put freedom day at risk? Will he please not risk any return to these fatuous restrictions over the winter? There has to be a balance. Better controls at the border than destroying our freedom at home.
Grant Shapps
I think it is true to say, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that people are fed up with the restrictions. The good news is that the evidence clearly shows divergence between the number of cases, the number of people going into hospital and—thank goodness—the number of deaths, so I have high confidence that 19 July will be the date. I look forward to people being able to regain some of the freedoms that have been too sadly lost over the past year and a half.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that
“this is a complicated policy that requires time to work through”,
but today he has pointedly and repeatedly failed to commit to additional support for the beleaguered travel sector until the return of free travel can be re-established. Does he understand the disappointment and anger at the failure to extend additional support to the travel industry to prevent the potential loss of tens of thousands more jobs?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady perhaps did not hear me mention that we are paying the entirety of the business rates bill for every airport—I must check the facts here—in England. I hope that the same is happening under the Scottish Government in Scotland. We are paying the bills through the furlough scheme of all the employees in the sector, both in airports and in the airlines. We have been providing financing—billions of pounds, in fact—to enable airports and airlines to keep themselves afloat through this crisis. I have to say that when it comes to these discussions, invariably the people who most do not want to restart travel tend to be the Government in Scotland, so I am a little surprised to hear the hon. Lady’s comments.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
The travel sector has had to deal with more disruption from the pandemic than most as countries are added and then taken away from different coloured lists. Travel agents have been particularly affected as customers book, then cancel their holidays. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that they receive the support that they need to enable those businesses to survive at this most difficult time?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Businesses across the travel industry have been drawing on the £350 billion-worth of grants and loans, VAT deferrals, the furlough scheme and much else besides. The best thing we can do is get the country flying again and get people moving again. Our exemplary progress with the vaccination roll-out gives us the best opportunity of that happening sooner rather than later.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
As the vaccine rolls out and as international travel increases, if we are to prevent new variants from sending us back to square one, there needs to be an effective surveillance system with transparent analysis built in so that there can be swift action. We do not have that effective system at the moment, as we have seen from the fact that the delta variant has whipped around the country and is now closing schools and preventing UK residents from travelling abroad because people do not want it to spread. We must improve that system and not be in a situation whereby so many cases can arrive in a country before preventive measures are taken. Will the Secretary of State agree, as part of improving that system, to finally start publishing the Joint Biosecurity Centre’s analyses—not just the arrivals data, but the analyses of what is happening in other countries? The Scientific Group for Emergencies papers are published. We have been calling for the Joint Biosecurity Centre’s papers to be published for almost a year. Please publish them now. What has the Secretary of State got to hide?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need to prevent the variants. Our surveillance system, which involves our sequencing the genome more than any other country in the world, as I know she appreciates, is a big part of that. We frequently find that we know about overseas variants before the host country and consequently we often tell them about it first.
I want to ensure that the record of the House is entirely accurate. I talked about the risk assessment methodology that is already published online. The methodology includes variant assessment, triage, risk assessment and outcomes, which inform ministerial decisions. Under each heading, there is tremendous detail. For example, triage includes testing rates per 100,000, weekly instances, test positivity, evidence of overseas variants under investigation and much else. Then we publish the data on both the Public Health England and the JBC websites. I invite the right hon. Lady to look at that data. I think she will also appreciate that there are times when, for diplomatic reasons, it would be difficult to publish other countries’ data before they have done so. However, she will find a wealth of information, which we are already publishing, on the JBC and PHE websites.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend, who is clearly putting in the effort to try to reopen international travel, but I also echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the Chair of the Select Committee. We need the equivalent of the domestic lockdown road map for reopening international travel. I appreciate that there are complex issues to resolve on opening travel to the amber list for those who have been fully vaccinated, but I am sure he realises that if we take too long to do that, there are travel sector businesses in our constituencies that will not be there to capitalise.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I want the issues that he raised to be resolved as soon as possible. Perhaps I should mention that through the G7 and the OECD, we are working to create internationally recognised systems. At the moment, every country is going off in its own direction, even among the EU 27, where there is no agreement on the basic standards for people moving around the world. He is right and I will be happy to return here to provide that further clarity.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
May I refer the House to my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Pakistan? Along with Bangladesh, Pakistan was placed on the red list at the start of April despite a clear disparity in cases with other nations on the green list that had high infection rates and variants of concern. I and other APPG colleagues have requested disclosure of the figures behind that decision, which we have still not received. The coronavirus positivity rate in Pakistan has now dropped to 1.78% and there are no reports of a variant of concern from the nation. Pakistan has also recently developed the PakVac, which will help in the fight. First, will the Secretary of State give me a full answer on why Pakistan was placed on the red list in the first place? Secondly, when will Pakistan be taken off the red list and placed on the amber or—ideally—green list?
Grant Shapps
The point that the hon. Lady and the whole House will wish to recognise is that last year we were able only to look at the level of infection, which she rightly mentioned, as the indication of a country’s position in what is now the traffic light system. However, as she will see when she looks at the JBC methodology, it is now far more complex. Many more factors are taken into account, including in particular the extent to which a country freely uploads its data to GISAID, the extent to which sequencing is carried out and the extent to which a country has vaccinated its domestic population as well as much else besides. All of that is available on the JBC website. I am happy on her behalf—I make this offer across the House—to put the authorities in Pakistan in touch with our scientists in order to better understand what a country might need to do to find itself back on the amber or, indeed, green list.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the efforts he is making to open international travel. However, will he look at the rules associated with passengers entering the United Kingdom from international hub airports and the added complexity that often brings? Doha, and Qatar Airways in particular, support many of the regional airports. He talked about the difficulties in regional airports and the support needed for those without the capacity of some of the larger UK airports. Will he consider the status of passengers who traditionally fly out of those regions?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That follows from the last question, really. It is no longer about just looking at what the infection rate is in a particular country; we need to understand who travels through that country. That can change a country’s rating, even though otherwise it would be perhaps a green list country. I refer him to the JBC’s advice, which sets out in considerable detail the various factors it is looking at. I extend the offer to countries and territories across the world to be in touch with us to better understand how we assess their data. Much of the time, a good hint for them is to be entirely transparent with the data and upload it to GISAID for sequencing so that we know that they know their level of variants of concern.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
The communities around Heathrow are hugely dependent on aviation for jobs, so they have been devastated by the pandemic’s impact on international travel. Hounslow borough alone has lost 43,000 jobs, with lower-income communities hardest hit, and 22,000 Hounslow residents are still furloughed and worrying about the end of the scheme in September. Aviation and its supply chain is not in a position to recover by September, and the Transport Secretary repeating figures from the general schemes from which the sector has received support is of no help for the future. When will Ministers announce the specific sector support they promised? Will that include a sector-specific extension of furlough?
Grant Shapps
I am concerned about the position of airlines and airports and of the aviation sector generally—the House will be interested to know that I track it every single week. I am a little concerned about the hon. Member dismissing £7 billion of support as if it is not a significant figure as well as, indeed, the bespoke work done to help airports in particular to pay their rates. She will appreciate that it is for the Chancellor to come to the House to explain whether further measures will be taken, and I am sure he will return to the House when the next Budget and autumn statement come round.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As I have the pleasure of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on business travel, I particularly welcome the Department’s recent announcement about quarantine exemptions for business travellers, but my right hon. Friend will know that they are restricted to a very small number of jet-setting multinational executives. The business travel ecosystem is much wider than that, so will he look again at the criteria for significant economic benefit, and instead look at just economic benefit, and set out when he might be able to widen the exemption to all business travel?
Grant Shapps
I am very happy to take a further look at it, and my hon. Friend is right to point to the exemptions that have been provided for large job-creating travel under very specific and restricted circumstances. To answer his question, we are best to pursue fully vaccinated status in order to open up travel further. Of course, that would apply to businesses as much as it would apply to everyone else. None the less, that is the route to getting business and other travel going again.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
From the Secretary of State’s response, it is clear he was not listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), who said that Labour supports an expansion of the green list and that we want the rapid introduction of covid passports. The Secretary of State claims that it is complicated, but other Europeans and Americans are already free to travel with a vaccine passport, a negative test or proof of infection in the last six months. Why are we less free than they are and less free than we were last summer, when we did not have the vaccines?
Grant Shapps
I am tempted to say that we cannot have it both ways. We have to be vigilant and aware of the risks of travelling to every single country in the world. Without exception, other countries do fewer tests of sequencing, so they do not know about variants. I see that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree, which is fine, but because they are not doing the sequencing it opens us up to an unknown degree of risk. [Interruption.] He says “Germany”, but 1.3% of their positive cases are sequenced, whereas we sequence nearly 50% of our cases—that is a good case in point.
Of course we are looking at what other countries are doing. We are also making sure that we are talking to them all; I speak to my counterparts on a regular basis. However, the fact of the matter is that we have a traffic light system. We need those countries to be able, ideally, to get into the green category and, if not, to be able to use the fully vaccinated route in order to open up travel further.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I was a travel agent and tour operator before I came to the House, and I have great sympathy for the industry. The Secretary of State will realise that travel is not just about holidays. I was made aware yesterday of a very sad case of people needing to travel as soon as possible following a sudden death of a young relative in the United States of America. In a state of shock, they wanted to know what they should do. If the Secretary of State can bring forward travel bridges, especially with the United States of America, it would help people in such circumstances.
Grant Shapps
I want to let my hon. Friend know that, in the very sad case that he talked about, America’s being on the amber list would allow them to travel. There is a wider issue with the United States around executive order 212(f), which prevents travel from the UK, European nations and many other countries within the previous 14 days, so people may well require special arrangements on the US side as well. That is not the British Government’s doing, of course, which is why we are working with the Americans through the working group to try to remove such impediments.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
The “wait and see” statement last Thursday just has not given the vision for international travel that many were hoping for, and it is not good enough to leave major airports, such as Newcastle International, in the dark. The outlook looks extremely challenging, and the Government cannot delay their aviation recovery plan any longer. The sector needs a comprehensive package of support to ensure that it can increase global connectivity and drive growth in our region in a planned way, and we need Newcastle airport to thrive for that. The Government say they are committed to global Britain, but when will they start acting like it?
Grant Shapps
I urge the hon. Lady to talk to her own Front Benchers, who are trying to remove the amber list entirely and chuck all those countries, presumably, into red; the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) is not able to tell us how many would go into green. Meanwhile, we are supporting Newcastle airport; as I mentioned, we have paid the entirety of its business rates throughout this crisis. The best hope of all for it is to get travel going again.
I have said this several times and I do not want to labour the point, but I will be returning to the House with full details of exactly how a double-vaccinated—fully vaccinated—status could help with international travel. I have also tried to explain why it is not quite as straightforward as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) might imagine; for example, what do we do about children, who have not yet had their vaccination status confirmed?
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I welcome the decision to loosen travel restrictions on double-jabbed Brits, but I also agree with other speakers regarding the need for a clear road map. However, whatever that road map contains, it will take time for passenger confidence to recover. Thousands of jobs in the travel industry are still at stake, so what will my right hon. Friend do to explore all options for further financial support for the travel industry?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will know that I have been working with the Chancellor throughout this crisis, which is how £7 billion-worth of support has been provided to the travel sector. I also think it is very important, as my hon. Friend and others have said, to be able to set out as clear a path as possible to the reopening of international travel, notwithstanding the fact that, unfortunately, the virus is raging in different parts of the world and new variants of interest, at least, and sometimes variants of concern, are coming about on a monthly basis. We will do everything we can to put in place a system that involves both the traffic lights and the double-vaccinated status in order to provide a sense of certainty—as much as can be done in a global pandemic—for the aviation sector.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
With greater restrictions being placed on UK travellers to Spain, Portugal, Germany and Hong Kong, there is no doubt that the aviation and travel sectors are still in a difficult place. We have already heard today the chief executive of the Association of British Travel Agents, Mark Tanzer, tell the Treasury Committee that 44% of ABTA members anticipate more redundancies as furlough tapers off. That is on top of 37% of those jobs already having been lost or being at risk, so action is plainly necessary. Does the Minister agree that there must be a tailored package of financial support, crucially including furlough extension, for the travel sector, as called for by the Travel Day of Action campaign?
Grant Shapps
I think the hon. Lady is aware that these are matters for the Chancellor, and I know that he will be coming to the House at some point to set out his future plans as we get through this pandemic.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
My constituent Tom Williams kindly agreed to participate in the Novavax trial. He was promised that that would not disadvantage him in any way. He is now fully vaccinated with Novavax and, restrictions willing, is hoping to go to France this summer with his family. As the European Medicines Agency has not yet certified the Novavax vaccine, the trip is now at risk. Will my right hon. Friend investigate this case as a priority and do all he can to ensure that Mr Williams can travel with his family?
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The changes announced by the Secretary of State will make a properly functioning test and trace system even more important. Last week, however, we saw the damning report of the National Audit Office on the English test and trace system, and just yesterday responses to a series of freedom of information requests made by my friend and colleague the MSP for North East Fife suggested a cover-up by the Scottish Government of failures in their test and protect scheme. What steps are being taken to work with the devolved nations on the functioning of testing regimes, and how will the Secretary of State ensure that those schemes are not overwhelmed as a result of the changing picture?
Grant Shapps
One of the very important things that we have been doing is automating the process of being able, essentially, to track people no matter where they have come back from. With regard to international travel, for example, the passenger locator form now automatically links with someone’s passport and provides confirmation as they enter, either through an e-gate or through a Border Force inspector, of where they have come from and therefore whether they need to self-isolate or quarantine. Those conversations are ongoing, and I keep in touch with the devolved Administrations about that on an ongoing basis.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Opposition do not seem to be able to name any countries or destinations they want to add to the green list, but may I suggest a couple—the Greek islands and the Canaries? Both have very low infection rates, they are very popular destinations for UK travellers, and they seem, potentially, to qualify under other criteria. When might they be added to the green list, and will they stay there until a variant of concern has been properly identified?
Grant Shapps
One thing I know for sure is that it is very difficult to give guarantees about any countries staying on the green list forever. That is how I ended up going to Spain and coming back two or three days later, after I had myself put it in the no-fly category, as it was at the time. However, I can tell my hon. Friend for sure that both the Canaries and the Greek islands were looked at in the last review. The fact that they did not qualify, as my hon. Friend rightly identifies, is a matter not simply of their infection rates, but the other criteria clearly set out by the JBC and available to him and others on the website. It is more likely to be to do, for example, with their ability to sequence the genome. We are working hard with countries across the world, particularly holiday destinations, to let them know what would be required, and we welcome further contact from them for them to be able to understand the system we are applying.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
The Secretary of State will no doubt agree with me that the support packages provided by the Government—furlough, grant packages, low interest loans—have been essential in supporting businesses and industry through the pandemic. With the continued impact of covid-19 on the aviation and travel industry, can the Secretary of State outline what representation he has made to the Chancellor on the part of the travel industry for the extension of furlough and a much-needed specific tailored grant support scheme to be provided to sustain jobs and protect the future of this industry?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about how essential the package has been to date, and my conversations with the Chancellor are of course, as with all Cabinet Ministers, ongoing.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
While we all have huge sympathy for travel companies with very little income, what action is the Secretary of State going to take to help people such as my recently widowed constituent who has had no refund for the holiday she was due to have with her husband, and not even an acknowledgement of receipt of her husband’s death certificate?
Grant Shapps
I am very sorry to hear about that particular case. I have been putting pressure on the whole sector to do the right thing, and to provide either vouchers or refunds where people require them. An essential part of being able to get travel back together is that people feel, when they book, that they would be able to rebook, should they need to do so for coronavirus reasons. I am not familiar with the individual case, but I would be very happy to follow it up for my hon. Friend.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Throughout the pandemic, the Transport Secretary has treated the travel industry as an afterthought—delaying decisions, making vague promises, creating chaos and confusion. Nearly 200,000 jobs have been lost or are at risk, and countless well-established high street agencies are now boarded up. Over a year ago, the Government promised a sector-specific support package. He keeps referring to £7 billion, yet he knows that that was purely for the aviation industry, not for travel agencies. ABTA wrote to him just this week about the lack of support. Why has he failed to deliver for them?
Grant Shapps
I have to say that that is a rather disingenuous thing to say about a Government who have provided furlough for absolutely everybody in every sector, including the ones the hon. Lady identifies. The support that the Chancellor has provided has been incredibly generous. I keep very closely in touch with travel agents, in my own constituency and across the country, and I understand the pressures they have been under. No one can pretend that it has been easy or straightforward, but I strenuously disagree with the hon. Lady if she is saying that that support has not been there, because the very fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates the extent to which we have been out there working to make sure that people are supported through this crisis.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I know that virus detection equipment from Kromek in Sedgefield is being trialled at both Newcastle and Teesside airports at the moment, and we hope it will be a valuable tool in the future. While I appreciate the sacrifices being made by our whole population to shield the most vulnerable and keep our NHS from being overwhelmed this year, I do not believe that economic growth and business should be held back until every adult is able to travel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although those not fully vaccinated may find it frustrating, we need to open up international travel for those who are fully vaccinated and safe to kickstart the rebuilding of the travel economy, for both businesses such as Mel’s Travel, a recently opened travel agency in Ferryhill, and workers in places such as Teesside airport? Where testing is required, the costs need to be reduced very substantially, especially for children.
Grant Shapps
The good news is that costs have been coming down, really quite dramatically, in the past couple of months. I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm and anxiety to get the sector open up as quickly as possible.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Just this morning, the Department for Transport snuck out the news that senior business executives will be able to dodge the quarantine rules relating to the amber list. I am sure the Secretary of State will want to take this opportunity to advise the House of the medical miracle that means that the wealthiest in society are unable to contract or, indeed, transmit covid-19. Or perhaps he can tell us what we already know: that on the watch of the Tories, it is simply one rule for the super-rich and another rule for the rest of us.
Grant Shapps
What a load of nonsense. I expect that the hon. Gentleman does not want to see—just taking a random example—the thousands of jobs created in car plants, just because of his vindictive and really very narrow view of how the world should operate. It is absolutely ridiculous. Anybody who is able to come to this country, for whatever reason, will be under very strict restrictions. They will require testing and they will be able to carry out only that specific piece of business. To my mind, if this helps thousands of people to keep their jobs and get new jobs, it is well worth while.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am particularly concerned about travel to France. My delegation to the Council of Europe, most of whom have been double-vaccinated, and despite having diplomatic status themselves, are having to wait to represent the UK in person until France has gone green. What changes does my right hon. Friend anticipate that could make our travel easier?
Grant Shapps
I am most anxious to enable my hon. Friend to travel to the Council of Europe, and I will undertake to speak to my opposite number, Jean-Baptiste Djebarri, to find out what can be done to encourage a regime that enables travel to take place more easily, but we are having to work with what is available to us at the moment. As France also has a traffic light system in place, I will do my best to ensure that the two of us can help that visit to take place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his responses. It is very difficult to know all the answers to these questions.
There have been mixed messages, with amber or green travel acceptable for some countries in the EU, while Germany says that the EU should get together and prevent UK nationals from travelling. The USA has stated that UK citizens may not travel to the States before August and may not be able to do so for a period of time after that, causing much uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State tell those who book holidays and then have them cancelled, or those who are on holiday and then have to quarantine on their return, just when there will be a direct, honest and clear strategy? With great respect, I have to tell him that, at this moment, my constituents do not know what they can or should do when it comes to booking an overseas holiday.
Grant Shapps
The reality of the situation is that this virus just does not give us those answers. I wish it would. I hope the hon. Gentleman can see that, through the combination of the traffic light system and the forthcoming double-vaccination system—so that it is not only the place but the individual that can be looked at—we will get to a position where people are able to travel more freely than they have been up to this point. However, I have to remind the House that we are still living through a global pandemic, and things are not quite so straightforward as has been suggested in one or two of the interventions, although not that of the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House briefly so that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
EU Settlement Scheme
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will provide an update on the EU settlement scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I am delighted to have this opportunity to mark and update the House on the huge success of the EU settlement scheme. As of the end of last month, more than 5.6 million applications had been received by the scheme, with more than 5.2 million concluded. As these number demonstrate, the dire warnings about our willingness to deliver an effective scheme to safeguard the position of millions of our friends and neighbours have proven totally unfounded.
Today, I invite all hon. and right hon. Members to play their part in communicating tomorrow’s deadline and encouraging those who are eligible, but who have yet to apply, to do so now. The Government have mounted a massive public information campaign to raise awareness about the scheme, investing almost £8 million in communications encouraging eligible EU citizens and their family members to apply by the deadline. We have also made extensive support available to applicants who need it, including providing £22 million in grant funding to organisations that have so far helped more than 300,000 vulnerable people to apply for the status that they deserve.
While the deadline is tomorrow, we will take a pragmatic and flexible approach to considering late applications made after the deadline. Our priority will remain to encourage those eligible to secure their status, and the examples of reasonable grounds given in the guidance that we have published are non-exhaustive. Each case will be considered based on its unique circumstances.
To confirm: a person’s existing rights will continue to be legally protected pending the outcome of an application made by the deadline of tomorrow, plus any appeal process that may follow. In the meantime, they will be able to rely on their certificate of application as proof of their right to work or rent when that is verified by the Home Office employer and landlord checking services.
We also expect the EU to uphold its obligations on citizens’ rights. We are aware that some UK nationals in the EU have faced difficulties in securing and exercising their rights. We are engaging with the EU through the specialised committee on citizens’ rights to address this.
The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in June 2016. We opened the EU settlement scheme in March 2019 on a basis much more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires. By contrast, most EU countries have an application window of around 12 months. Our position has remained clear throughout: EU citizens are our colleagues, neighbours, friends and family. We want them to stay and to get the status that they deserve under the EU settlement scheme. The fact that so many have already chosen to do so is something to celebrate, and I encourage anyone who is eligible, but yet to apply, to join the millions who have already secured their rights through our scheme, with support available online, on the phone and through our fantastic grant-funded organisations.
Paul Blomfield [V]
The Prime Minister promised EU citizens “absolute certainty” of their rights to live and remain in the UK, but the day before applications to the EU settlement scheme close, serious questions remain unanswered, so may I press the Minister on some of them? Reports suggest that the Government have estimated that up to 130,000 of those eligible for benefits have not applied for settled status. What assessment has the Home Office made of the total number of eligible EU citizens still to apply, and how has it reached out actively to those people? What support has been given to older and more vulnerable people who have yet to make applications, particularly those in social care? There is concern that some parents have thought it unnecessary to apply on behalf of their children. How is the Home Office identifying those children and enabling their applications?
Government figures show that applications have been made for only one in three children in care, so what has been done for the others? The Home Office has said that late applications on reasonable grounds will be considered, so will the Minister confirm what status those applicants will have while the reasonableness of their case is determined?
Victims of domestic abuse whose traumatic circumstances have prevented an application will lose rights to support and a place in a refuge. What has been done to protect them? One in three landlords are not aware of the settlement scheme. Business groups think employers do not know enough about it. What has been done to ensure that nobody is wrongly excluded from housing or work?
Almost half—around 2 million—of those who have applied for settled status have not received it. Instead, they have pre-settled status with no long-term rights. What are the Government doing to ensure that they can overcome the barriers to full status?
There is a real risk of a new Windrush-type tragedy in the future if we do not get this right now. The pandemic has affected Government capacity and communication, so will the Minister reconsider his previous statement, follow the lead of countries such as France and the Netherlands in relation to UK citizens and extend the deadline for applications?
Kevin Foster
The promise of absolute clarity is exactly what the EUSS is there to deliver: the absolute clarity that a person will be able to prove, demonstrate and have recorded their rights in this country not just for the next couple of years but for decades to come. That is why we are delighted that we have had so many applications and have already managed to give that certainty to millions of our fellow residents here in the UK.
On the work that has been done with the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, we are keen to reach out to all who could be eligible to apply, hence the letters sent to those for whom there was no record of an EUSS application. Further work will be done after the deadline to encourage those identified in that way to make an application. As has been said before, anyone who is already a British citizen or has indefinite leave to remain under systems that predated free movement does not need to apply—although those with ILR under previous systems may choose to upgrade, for free, to status under the EUSS.
In my opening response I touched on the work we are doing not only to advertise the scheme but via the grant-funded organisations based throughout our United Kingdom that have been working with many of the most vulnerable to ensure that they can apply. More than 300,000 applications have been directly supported by that network, which works with, for example, those with chaotic lifestyles or those who may have been rough sleeping.
On children in care, I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he thought Government figures showed that only a third of them had applied. In fact, the most recent survey of local authorities, which went to the end of April, showed that 67% of such applications had been made where settlement had already been granted. We continue to work with local authorities and are grateful for the support shown not just for children in care but for adults in care who may need support.
On the position in other countries, I gently make the point that by the day that France opened its system for UK nationals living in France, the EUSS had already received 4 million applications and literally millions of statuses had been granted. We need to have that in mind when we make comparisons.
We have already seen 147,000 people convert from pre-settled to settled status, even though they did not need to do that immediately—they qualified by hitting the five-year period. Again, there will be support and reminders, and there will be reasonable grounds for a late application to go from pre-settled to settled status in a similar vein as for those who miss the deadline tomorrow.
Significant support is available, and if there are compelling or compassionate circumstances after the deadline, we will work with agencies, particularly those that deal with the most vulnerable, to look at expediting applications through the process where needed. My core message today is very simple: if you are eligible, apply now and secure the status that you deserve.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Government are to be congratulated on the remarkable success of the scheme—there have been 5.6 million applicants, against an estimate of just 3 million qualifying people in this country—but I share the Minister’s concern about the lack of energy and urgency in respect of reciprocal arrangements for British citizens in EU countries. Does he have an estimate of how many British citizens have so far applied and how many cases are outstanding?
On the specific issue of children in care, I am glad to hear that the number of applications has now been raised to two thirds, but is his estimate still that some 10,000 children in care would qualify? That would mean that something like 3,500 very vulnerable children have still not been registered and, if they are not, could be the subject of a future Windrush-type scandal.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I shall start with his last point first. We are working hard with local authorities. The figure I gave was from the end of April. We are now coming to the end of June, and we know that a significant number of applications have been lodged in support of children in care. I have often given this example, but if, for the sake of argument, a child in care aged five today discovers in 13 years’ time, when they become an adult, that their application had not been made on their behalf—when, for example, they get their first job—we will consider that reasonable grounds for a late application.
In terms of the schemes in Europe, we encourage EU member states to look at the progress we have made in the UK with the EUSS and at how their systems could replicate it by being free and relatively simple, with plenty of support available. Similarly, we encourage all UK nationals in the EU to check their status and ensure that they submit their application in in good time.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this urgent question. There could not be a more powerful warning to the Government of what happens when innocent people are deprived of their right to be here than the Windrush scandal. Twenty-eight-day warnings advising people to apply for settled status have been issued, despite an estimated 400,000 applications still awaiting processing. As my hon. Friend said, leaked documents suggest that 130,000 people in receipt of benefits have yet to sign up, and that support could be taken away. The Children’s Society has estimated that applications have not been made for more than 2,000 children in care or care leavers. That is why the Opposition have called for an extension of the European Union settlement scheme to the end of September. The Government must then do everything possible to sign up eligible people, with a strategy focusing on the vulnerable, children in care and care leavers.
Will the Minister confirm what is being done to support those who are unable to use or access the internet? More widely, how many eligible individuals does the Home Office believe have yet to sign up, and precisely how many applications are still being processed? Put simply, the Government have not done enough to prevent people from falling through the cracks. To avoid the risk of terrible injustice, surely the Government must extend the deadline to the end of September and use the additional time to ensure that all who are eligible are signed up.
Kevin Foster
What I would say is that the EUSS itself is the lesson learned from Windrush. Granting people status via an Act of Parliament, with no record taken and no document to prove it, might work for a few years while people can still easily prove where they were living on a particular date, but many years down the line it produces the outcomes we saw. That is exactly why we have been keen to make the EUSS relatively simple and open, with criteria that are basically based on residence, not on exercising specific free movement rights, which would have been far more restrictive and complicated for applicants to prove.
Intensive work is being done to support the most vulnerable, with 72 grant-funded organisations being funded up to the end of September to continue supporting applications and those with status beyond the deadline tomorrow. Again, we have been working closely with local authorities to reach out to those in care—not just children in care, but adults as well.
Literally millions of applications have been received, although it is hard to give a precise figure for how many applications are currently outstanding, given that literally thousands are still coming in every day—and we very much welcome that. To reassure the House, we have dealt with much larger surges of applications. For example, around Christmas, we were receiving literally tens of thousands of applications. Also to reassure the House, the vast majority of those have already been resolved, with all but a small percentage having been granted status under the EUSS.
We believe that we have made great progress, but, as we have touched on before, we have published non-exhaustive guidance on what we will see as reasonable grounds for a late application, including for many vulnerable groups. We have also published guidance for employers—and landlords—on what their approach should be to an EEA national they had employed before the deadline and how the first resort should be to look at supporting them in making an application.
The hon. Gentleman said that 28-day warnings have been issued. To be clear, those have not been issued. We have not got to the deadline; what he was referring to is the approach we will take when we encounter people who may be eligible for EUSS status after the deadline.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I have a very substantial and thriving European community in Kensington, with South Kensington being the home of the French community in the UK. I welcome the success of this scheme, with 5.6 million applications and 5.2 million already approved. May I ask my hon. Friend a very specific question? I have certain residents who, during the pandemic, have had to go back to their home European country. Will he assure me that this will not prejudice their application?
Kevin Foster
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we have already published some quite significant guidance on the exact position for people who have had to go home to their country. To be clear, if someone has settled status, they can actually be outside the UK for up to five years without losing that status. For those with pre-settled status, there are provisions that allow them to be outside the UK for an important reason during the qualification period. Reports that people would lose that entitlement if they were out of the country for more than six months during the pandemic were not correct; we have published guidance on that. If someone has gone home to be with their family, having been resident in the UK before 31 December, there are a number of provisions in place to ensure that they can still secure the status they deserve under the European settlement scheme.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
The hospitality sector, among others, has long warned that Brexit would mean it lost much of its workforce, and it has; but worse, more than 100,000 people who want to stay are waiting more than three months for a decision. Does the Minister realise that after this week employers will be scared to employ those workers? In a recent debate, he told me that everyone receives a certificate of application and that this would suffice. Well, the3million advised me today that many have never received this certificate. Why not? I have seen one, and it does not tell employers for how long it remains valid. Again, why not? The process also requires applicants to go through 14 stages on a website—if it is working.
I do not envisage a big bang on 1 July but I do foresee huge problems in the coming months, with people willing to work and employers desperate to employ, but too much uncertainty about the legality of doing so. I appreciate the desire to go digital, but until that digital is working properly, why will the Government not provide physical proof for people, as they can apparently do for covid vaccination status? If it is too difficult, please just do what the Scottish Government and others have called for and extend the deadline—or, better still, scrap the scheme and have a declaratory scheme, which is what was promised by many of the Minister’s colleagues, including the Prime Minister, in the first place.
Kevin Foster
I have already pointed out exactly the issue with declaratory schemes. They sound good in theory, because everyone gets a status; the problem is that if no record is taken and nothing is issued to prove that status, in later years it is extremely difficult for people to prove their rights. That is the key lesson learned from the experience of those who were granted a declaratory status back on 1 January 1973.
Let me make it clear from the Dispatch Box that those who have made an in-time application and have a certificate of application retain a right to work here in the UK while their application is being considered. We have been clear in our guidance about what employers should do if they have any queries or issues. There is no requirement for employers to undertake retrospective checks; they maintain a statutory excuse in relation to the right-to-work checks and legislation, if they accepted an EEA passport or national identity card as proof of a right to work before 30 June. That is the clear position.
This morning, we have sent a detailed reply to the3million regarding some particular queries it had about those who are yet to receive a certificate of application. Given the length of this session, I will arrange for that to be placed in the Library for Members’ reference.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
Although I welcome the fact that so many citizens of the EU are voting with their feet—and they are welcome here—could my hon. Friend explain how previous Governments left us in a situation where an estimate of 3.8 million applications has turned into an actual figure of 5.6 million, without a single word of contrition? What a failure of the state.
Kevin Foster
In terms of the position we take as the Government today, anyone who is entitled to and deserves status under the EUSS will be granted it—there is no limit, there is no target and there are no quotas. It is interesting to note the number of applications we have received versus the impact assessments done back in 2004, but we have a new points-based system that allows us to better decide and better set in place what type of positions we want to have in terms of migration and ultimately judges people by their skills and talents and what they have to offer the UK, rather than fundamentally by what passport they hold.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister said that help was available on the phone. As of today, it still is not for most people; the phone line simply says, “There is no space left on the call queue”, because there are obviously not enough people able to respond, and I understand that was the case last week and the week before as well. May I just press him on the situation for children who may not have applied at this point? The guidance states:
“Where a parent, guardian or Local Authority has failed by the relevant deadline to apply…on behalf of a child…that will normally constitute reasonable grounds for the child…to make a late application”.
Clearly that is welcome, but why does it not say that that will always constitute reasonable grounds for a late application? For those children, it is clearly not their fault; somebody else should have applied for them. Will he strengthen that guidance and reassure them and say that will always be reasonable grounds?
Kevin Foster
I appreciate the question and how the right hon. Member has put it. My understanding is that we would adopt the approach that if it was someone who was under 18 or who was lacking mental capacity and was over 18—for example, power of attorney was in place and someone else should have made the application—we would accept that as reasonable grounds for a late application being made. I make it clear, as I have said before, that the guidance is non-exhaustive. People do not have to meet one of the many reasons listed; we will always look at the individual’s circumstances to see whether they had reasonable grounds. I am happy to pick up the point concerned, because our general principle is that if someone else should have made the application, whether due to someone’s age or mental capability, or for example because there is a deputyship in place or they were in the care of a local authority, we would usually see that almost certainly as reasonable grounds for a late application.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the work that the Department has been doing to secure the rights of EU citizens here in the UK and, as he mentioned, the reciprocal case of British citizens out in the EU. Does he agree that the success of the EU settlement scheme showcases the UK’s commitment to a firm but fair immigration system now that we are a sovereign nation in charge of our own borders?
Kevin Foster
What it shows is that we can deliver a scheme that secures the rights here in the United Kingdom of millions of our neighbours, friends and colleagues, and it also shows how we can deliver using better technology. The vast majority of people have applied literally from the comfort of their own home and have not had to go off to a visa application centre, for example, to prove their identity. With simple rules and criteria—for example, residence, not exercising free movement rights—we could grant a large number of applications fairly quickly. It not only welcomes EU nationals who came in the time of free movement, but it gives some strong lessons that we can take over into the reform and simplification of the rest of our immigration system. We have applied many of the lessons from the EUSS to the start of the British nationals overseas visa route that we created earlier this year, such as online application from home, simple criteria and a digital status that is quickly and easily issued.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May I say to the Minister that I did exactly what he has enjoined others to do? Some weeks ago, I wrote to all the EU nationals I could identify in my constituency. We publicised the looming deadline in the press, and I have to tell him that it turned up a disturbing number of glitches in the system, not least one involving the inadequacy of certain mobile smartphones for uploading documents. I would have hoped that by this stage of things, those sorts of bugs would have been ironed out of the system, but my experience is very much that they have not.
On the figures that the Minister has given the House today, there remain something in the region of 400,000 unprocessed applications. Making allowance for the fact that there is bound to be a late surge, we might anticipate that there will be some half a million by the time of the close of the deadline. He will be aware that only once an application has been granted is the applicant entitled to the right to healthcare, to work and to rent. They could be liable to charges within the NHS. What does he intend to do for these possibly half a million people while we are waiting for the applications to be processed?
Kevin Foster
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Those who have an application—[Interruption.] I am not sure why we have Wimbledon on the screens, but anyway—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It should be noted that there is a mistake in the broadcasting. I will just pause the House for a moment. Can we have it stopped immediately? It is not fair to the Minister to have his audience distracted, although of course nobody would think that Wimbledon was more exciting than what he has to say.
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think what I have to say is actually quite crucial given the reference to the position of half a million people in this country. Let us be absolutely clear: a person who applies by the 30 June 2021 deadline will have their existing rights protected pending the outcome of their application, including any appeal. That includes the right to work and the right to access healthcare. This is achieved not just by me saying it at the Dispatch Box but by the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—a law passed last year. The firm message that I would give is that people should get their applications in by the deadline tomorrow, but if they have made an application in time, before that deadline, their rights are protected pending the outcome. Therefore, those half a million people will not be exposed to some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman set out.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Was what we just saw, Madam Deputy Speaker, a preview of what is going to happen at 5 o’clock so that people who are here for the estimates day debate can do two things at once? The great success that the Government have had with the EU settlement scheme contrasts rather heavily with the failure to stop illegal immigrants coming across the channel escorted by French naval vessels. Does the excellent Minister have any reassurance for this House that that will be the next item on the agenda to be dealt with?
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I can reassure him that this time next week we will be introducing in the House legislation to do just that and to fix our broken asylum system.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
Many in Hornsey and Wood Green have called the UK their home for decades, but they have yet to hear back from the Home Office. A 62-year-old man is waiting anxious and fearful of being separated from his family. Will the Minister today fix the Home Office telephones, get through the backlog and calm the nerves of constituents who fear a Windrush-style scandal of falling through the cracks and being excluded from vital support?
Kevin Foster
I have said that those with in-time applications waiting for decision have their existing rights protected. To be clear, the vast majority of applications are dealt with within three months and those that have been outstanding for over a year are mostly ones where there are issues relating to criminality.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Many businesses in my constituency have been struggling to find the staff that they need as our economies reopen, whether that is in tourism and hospitality, construction, food processing or horticulture. Part of the reason is that many EU citizens who were granted settled status went back to their home countries as a result of the pandemic. Yet this workforce will be essential to help to rebuild our economy, so can my hon. Friend confirm that anyone who has received settled status will not only be entitled to come back to the UK but will be welcome back here to help us to rebuild our economy?
Kevin Foster
Absolutely. I fully endorse the comments my hon. Friend has just made about people being welcome when they come back to the UK. People who have settled status can be absent from the UK for up to five years and still return, and pick up their entitlements on return, including the right to work.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
“Data not dates” is the Government’s mantra for lockdown easing, so should it not be the same for settled status? The data clearly shows that tens of thousands of EU citizens, to whom the Government promised the right to stay, will become undocumented overnight, criminalised for working, renting accommodation or opening a bank account. They may be young or elderly, have insufficient language or digital skills, or have been unable to return to the UK because of the pandemic. In Newcastle, we value our European residents, so will the Minister not extend the deadline? Or does he want another Windrush?
Kevin Foster
The EU settlement scheme has already granted millions of people secure status in this country and is granting it to thousands more people every day. That is the key focus for us: getting people to apply before the deadline. However, as we have said numerous times, we will accept late applications where there are reasonable grounds for that, including from the most vulnerable.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for updating the House on the progress of the EU settlement scheme. Does he agree that with time running out the best thing we can be doing is encouraging people to make sure they have applied, rather than engaging in the doomsaying, naysaying and the putting down of the entire scheme we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches?
Kevin Foster
I could not agree more. I suspect that a few years back we were getting lots of predictions that we would never manage to grant millions of statuses to people who are our friends and neighbours, but we have managed to do that and we have had applications come in. I agree that now is the time to encourage people to get their applications in and secure their rights, and join the millions of people who have already done so.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It has been clear that the Government have no idea how many EU citizens were in the UK, or how important they are to the NHS, the economy and our cultural and educational institutions. It is also clear that the settlement scheme is overly bureaucratic and unwieldy, so I am going to press the Minister again: will the Government at least extend the deadline by six months so that the mess they created can be sorted out?
Kevin Foster
The many people who found it was a simple application using an app would be surprised to hear the comments about it being unwieldy and everything else. The fact we have managed to grant millions of statuses already and have hundreds of thousands of applications received, and be granting thousands more statuses and receiving thousands more applications every day, would not suggest that this is a particularly unwieldy system to deal with.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement on the EU settled status scheme today as a great example of how legal immigration routes can be effective, but what progress have the Government made on preventing illegal immigration, such as the kind we continue to see on the English channel?
Kevin Foster
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. He is right to allude to the fact that our system needs to be not only firm, but fair, as we have seen with the millions of statuses we have granted under the EUSS. As I have already mentioned, next week we will bringing before the House new legislation to reform our broken asylum system and help break the business model of those heinous people-smuggling networks. Just for background, I should say that just so far this year over 5,000 channel crossings have been prevented, and we continue to work with French authorities to crack down on the criminal gangs behind this disgraceful trade.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) [V]
During the Brexit campaign, the Prime Minister promised automatic settled status for EU nationals living across these islands. What we have got is a vague reassurance of consideration of reasonable grounds. My concern is about the most vulnerable people in my communities and across these islands: those in care homes and the care system and those who are very hard to reach. When the guillotine falls tomorrow, will the Prime Minister have made liars of us all? What will happen to those people? What is the mechanism for establishing reasonable grounds and how will people be treated? Will they lose their homes? Where will they be held? Will they be deported?
Kevin Foster
The hon. Gentleman might want to review some of the answers that I have already given and some of the guidance that has been published on, for example, employment. To be clear, there is nothing vague about the fact that we have granted millions of solid statuses, that there are people who have status while their applications are being considered—
Kevin Foster
The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but those are incontrovertible facts.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I very much associate myself with the comments about the need to promote the success of this programme, especially to those critical workers, who many in my constituency have told me they want to see returning as part of reopening. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth considering introducing a series of measures to encourage public bodies to refer EU citizens to support services so that they can ensure that they apply before any restrictions come in? Those who apply late are most likely to be encountered when being refused housing by local authorities. It would be enormously helpful for measures to be taken to ensure that public bodies that encounter those who may not have applied are encouraged to refer them to make their applications as soon as possible.
Kevin Foster
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have already done some close work with public bodies. For example, getting EUSS status can be very helpful to someone with a chaotic lifestyle who may have been homeless because it gives them a firm status and identity. We are working on those systems. We have been working closely with local government, particularly in the last two years, to get applications in and we will continue to do that. That includes work on provisions for expediting late applications when there are compassionate or compelling circumstances.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the Minister on what has undoubtedly been a successful campaign, which he has looked after. However, I am sure that he accepts that there are anomalies in the system, specifically in Northern Ireland because of the land border that we share with an EU state, namely, the Republic of Ireland. That land border, which allows free movement across the whole island, between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, can at times undermine some of the good work that the Department is trying to do and affect and undermine commercial interests in Northern Ireland because of the different status that now applies. With that in mind, and given that the Minister has written to me about a number of those issues, is he willing to meet me to discuss those anomalies to see whether there is a way of addressing some of the problems that have been identified?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his overall comments. I would certainly be happy to meet. As he knows, Irish citizens do not need to apply. The frontier worker system has been open since January. That is more likely to apply to the Irish land border than perhaps it is in other parts of the UK. I was pleased to be in Northern Ireland last week to meet our two grant-funded organisations and someone who is a famous former Member of this House, who is the CEO of one of them, to discuss their work to reach out to more vulnerable citizens.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
I welcome my hon. Friend’s encouragement to people to make their applications, something that my constituent and his family, who have been in the UK since 2008, did together. His wife and children are among the 5.2 million people who have already received settled status, but my constituent has yet to hear. To provide certainty and reassurance to families, can the Minister arrange for a priority in cases where members of a family have been treated separately?
Kevin Foster
First, to reassure my hon. Friend’s constituent, all those who have applied by 30 June will have their existing rights protected pending the outcome of their application. To be clear, we deal with linked family applications together as far as we can. Those who apply after another family member may be doing so in their own right and may need to be assessed individually. However, as I have already touched on, our goal is to get as many outstanding cases completed as possible. Those that have been outstanding for over a year are mostly related to pending prosecutions or serious criminality.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes so that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Bereavement (Leave and Pay)
Tuesday 29th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill 2021-22 View all Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about leave and pay for employees of whom a close family member has died.
This Bill is designed to address the need for statutory paid bereavement leave for all employees on the sad loss of a close family member or partner. In recent years, I was privileged to be one of a number of MPs who worked cross-party to secure paid bereavement leave for parents on the loss of a child up to the age of 18. That effort showed this place at its best, and that work was finally enshrined in law as of April this year. As that work was going on, however, I said in this Chamber that, groundbreaking though that achievement was, it simply did not go far enough. That is why I am presenting this Bill.
According to research commissioned by the charity Sue Ryder, a third of employees who experienced a bereavement in the past year did not receive any communication from managers or the leadership of their organisation about bereavement. Only 32% of employees are aware of whether their employer has a bereavement policy, despite the fact that we are in the middle of a global health pandemic, with covid-19 linked to more than 152,000 deaths across the UK so far. Of those who felt well supported by their employer after experiencing a bereavement, 60% cited being allowed enough time off and not being pressured to return to work before they were ready as key actions that their employer took.
This Bill is timely, as the global health pandemic, which has touched us all in various ways, has sharply reminded us about the fragility of life and the profound and cruelly random nature of loss and bereavement. The line on employer discretion with regard to time off for employees following a profound event such as a bereavement is simply unfair. People deserve a level playing field. After all, death is the great leveller. Across the UK during this health pandemic, we have experienced bereavement on a distressing scale, and it has touched us all. Many of us have lost or feared losing a loved one. This has had a significant impact on our workforce, with 7.9 million people in employment—that is 24% of all employees—having experienced a bereavement in the past 12 months.
It is estimated that, for every death, six people experience intense grief. Taking into account the number of deaths in the UK each year and employment rates, we can say that bereavement causes nearly 2 million working people to suffer from intense grief each year. Such a profoundly life-changing experience brings with it potential long-term consequences for a person’s mental and physical health, and in some cases it can trigger mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as being linked to an increased likelihood of heart attacks, diabetes and increased mortality.
The impacts of grief on society are huge and must no longer be left to the discretion of employers to manage in the workplace. We all know that many employers are supportive and understanding when an employee suffers a close bereavement, but we also know that many employers are not as supportive as they could be. Sometimes those who are grieving are pressured to return to work when they are still in the midst of the initial shock and trauma of loss. Without any statutory rights for employees to paid bereavement leave, the time and space to grieve for too many people is determined by the good will of their employer. That cannot be right and is counterproductive in a number of ways.
Typically, UK employers offer three to five days’ compassionate leave for the death of a close relative, but the discretionary nature of this leave means potentially that thousands of employees are unable to take leave without fearing that it would undermine their job security. In addition, we know that those in less well-paid jobs are far less likely to receive any discretionary time off with pay when they suffer a bereavement, or have any compassionate leave at all, which is grossly unfair.
We all need time and space to grieve without worrying about loss of pay or pressure to return to work too soon. Those on low pay are much less able to absorb the losses associated with unpaid leave and the immediate financial burden of bereavement. They are also at greater risk of being dismissed from work for taking time off, or of not being able to focus on their work due to the fog of grief. That increases the pressure and financial stress on employees who are trying to cope with the loss of a close family member. There is also some evidence to suggest that those in more challenged socio-economic circumstances are more likely to experience complicated or persistent grief, because they are likely to face more difficulties accessing appropriate services and information to help them to cope with their feelings of loss and grief.
As well as compassionate reasons for statutory bereavement leave, there are also economic reasons for this change. Research shows that grief experienced by employees who have lost a loved one costs the UK economy £23 billion per year and costs the Treasury nearly £8 billion per year. However, those costs could reach as high as £49 billion to the economy and £18 billion to the Treasury.
Most of the considerable economic impact arises from grieving employees being unable to work at their normal levels of productivity while they deal with the emotional, practical and financial aspects of coping with the loss of a close relative. That in turn leads to a cost to the Treasury in lost tax revenues and the fall-out of reliance on NHS support such as mental health and social care needs that can often follow. So although statutory bereavement leave for all those who lose a close family member will involve costs, this is actually preventive expenditure, as it will lead to a significant saving for the UK economy and the Treasury and a more productive and resilient workforce with reduced staff absence. Such support will mean less reliance on NHS services or perhaps even social security support in the case of those employees who drop out of the workforce altogether following a close bereavement. Of course, there is a cost attached to this, but there are also significant costs to not doing this. It is in our interests as a society, and it is in the Treasury’s interest, to take full cognisance of the profound debilitating effect that grief can have on those who lose a loved one. Statutory paid bereavement leave is a progressive and enlightened measure for any society to have in place.
Statutory bereavement leave for the loss of a close relative is something that people across the UK support. In fact, 62% of people across the UK believe that it is the right thing to do. The current arrangements, allowing leave for family emergencies, carry no statutory obligation that such leave should be paid, and it very often is not. We need to put bereavement leave for all who lose a close relative or partner on a statutory footing. That is what the Bill seeks to do, and that can be achieved if the political will is there to do it. Support for this measure certainly exists in wider society.
I urge the Government to study the proposals contained in the Bill carefully for the sake of the wellbeing of our workforce and our economy and support the progressive and compassionate measures that would give the profound effects of bereavement the statutory recognition they need and deserve. If they were to do so, as we emerge from this global health pandemic, that would send a signal that the Government have true empathy with all the losses suffered. We need to look after each other. This Parliament and this Government should take the opportunity to lead the way.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Patricia Gibson, Marion Fellows, Kirsten Oswald, Carol Monaghan, Brendan O’Hara, Joanna Cherry, Jonathan Edwards, Ian Mearns, Jim Shannon, Liz Saville Roberts, Bob Blackman and Jamie Stone present the Bill.
Patricia Gibson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 134).
Estimates Day
Education Recovery
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Chair of the Education Committee, can I say that, as Members will notice, Back-Bench contributions are for up to six minutes? I remind all Members, whether they are physically here or speaking remotely, that if they are going to withdraw for whatever reason—and I understand there are competing loyalties for people on this day and some may wish to withdraw—I hope they will notify the Speaker’s Office in the usual way. We all wish England well in the match tonight.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I do not intend to detain the House for too long with my remarks, given what, as you have just reminded us, Mr Deputy Speaker, is happening not long after this debate.
I thank the House for agreeing to this debate on the estimates in relation to the Department for Education’s recovery package. It is right that Members should consider the amount and distribution of funding allocated to lost learning. I want to talk about the damage to our children and young people’s education and progress, and about how Department for Education funding can be put to its most effective use to mitigate this damage, to encourage innovative methods to recover the learning lost as a result of this dreadful pandemic and to enrich the lives of those truly disadvantaged in this country.
Of course, we should all recognise that schools remained open to disadvantaged and key worker children even when closed to other pupils. For that, we pay tribute to the school leaders, teachers and, of course, all the school support staff, who are often forgotten, but who actually make the running of schools possible.
We are all aware that pupils at all stages of their education experienced lost learning as a result of national lockdowns, school closures and the need for individuals, classes and whole year groups to self-isolate. The impact of each of these periods of absence from school continues to be a significant and ongoing issue. Research commissioned by the Department in May 2021 found that all year groups experienced a learning loss of between two and three months in reading and mathematics. We also know that there are regional disparities in the level of learning loss in reading, with pupils in the north-east and in Yorkshire and the Humber seeing the greatest losses.
Even more alarmingly, while the pandemic has impacted on children and young people differently—for example, remote learning was especially difficult for children with special educational needs and disabilities—disadvantaged pupils have, overall, experienced greater learning losses of as much as seven months in both reading and maths.
A further wretched outcome of this pandemic is that school closures have reversed some of the progress we have been making in reducing the attainment gap. It was already stalling before coronavirus came upon us, but it has made reducing the attainment gap for disadvantaged children over the past decade much worse. Lost learning has structural consequences for these pupils that could result in lost earnings of as much as 3.4% in their lifetimes. That translates to a loss of between £26,500 and £52,300 in their earning potential, which is a tragedy on an individual and societal basis. Sir Kevan Collins, who came to the Education Committee this morning, said that he had worked with the DFE and that the overall loss to the country could be up to £100 billion.
Alarmingly, this week the Centre for Social Justice published findings that, at the end of 2020, almost 100,000 pupils—some as young as primary age—were still absent from school. No amount of proposed covid catch-up funding can help those children if they are not attending school. I worry that we are creating a generation of ghosted children, lost to an education system that does not know where they are, which is damaging their life chances and denying them a chance to climb the education ladder of opportunity. I urge the Minister, who I know cares deeply about these things, to implement rigorous methods of tracking where these children are and assessing what educational standard of learning they are receiving.
Over the past few days we have learned that a few hundred thousand children are being sent home from school because of covid bubbles. That has got to stop. Our children must be in school and learning, because every day they are out of school we are destroying their life chances. Every day they are out of school we are stopping them climbing to the top of the ladder that is supposed to bring jobs, prosperity and security for themselves and their families. I urge radical action not just in tracking the 100,000 ghosted children currently lost to the education system but in ensuring that whole bubbles of children are no longer sent home. Whether it is mobile vans, like blood donor vans, sent up and down the country to test pupils, setting up special test hubs inside or outside school or whatever it may be, we have to keep our children in school.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for bringing the debate forward and for his knowledge. I followed him last week on young Protestant males’ underachievement, which is important for us in Northern Ireland and certainly here for the Minister as well. Does he agree with me and, I suspect, many others inside and outside the House that there is a big crisis coming in relation to the mental health of children who are unable to cope with life as a result of covid-19 in the last year and its impact on life at home with all the restrictions? Does he feel that the Minister needs to have a strategy in place along with Health Ministers to address children’s mental health from primary school all the way through to secondary school and college?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman, whom I regard as a friend, gets it exactly right. People often focus just on the loss of academic attainment, but there are also the mental health problems facing children during the pandemic. We know that eating disorders have gone up by 400% among young people, which is a pretty horrific figure. We also know that one in six children has mental health difficulties when it used to be one in nine. The Minister is putting a lot more money—many millions of pounds—into mental health, and I welcome that, but I would like to see a mental health practitioner or counsellor in every school in the land, with proper time not just for the kids but for the parents and teachers as well. We have almost a mental health epidemic sweeping through the younger generation because of covid and many other factors that are much more complex.
To go back to the ghosted children, we must implement rigorous methods for tracking where each of these children is and assessing what educational standard of learning they are receiving. I applaud the investment that Ministers and the Government have made so far to address lost learning. The £3 billion of additional support for children to make further progress in the curriculum after a significant amount of time away from school during the pandemic is a genuine commitment to this generation—it is a significant amount of money that should not be sniffed at—but we need to ensure that there is further funding down the track. Let me tell hon. Members about two wonderful schools in my constituency to showcase how that funding can translate to on-the-ground catch-up offers in schools. Abbotsweld Primary Academy has allocated the additional funding to allow for four days of 8 am starts for year 5 and 6 pupils. The start of the day includes a free breakfast alongside physical education lessons, and there is additional time for English and mathematics during the school day. Burnt Mill Academy is using £5,000 of its catch-up funding to offer summer schools to support students’ literacy and numeracy skills, ensuring that the gaps in learning are closed through enrichment activities. Our teachers and support staff all around the country are working hard to put the money to good use so that it has the most significant impact possible, and we give them our thanks.
Let me remind the House that the objectives of the measures to support education recovery are to recover the missed learning caused by coronavirus and to reduce the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. As I have said, I commend the Department for the money that has been put in—the £3 billion and the increase in pupil premium funding to £2.5 billion for 2021-22. However, will the Minister confirm whether changing the date of the school census in 2020 from October to January has meant a loss of £90 million to schools, as 62,216 children became eligible but did not attract pupil premium in 2021-22? I also ask him whether the catch-up funding proposed by the Government is not new money, but funds repurposed from existing budgets, which are now being shared out among all students instead of focused on those who suffer the most disadvantage and are at the most threat of lost learning. Will he confirm that this is really new money for catch-up and recovery?
As I have argued before, the Government should set out a long-term plan for education and education recovery, with a transparent funding settlement, much as we see from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Defence. If the Department of Health and Social Care can have a 10-year plan and a secure funding settlement, and the Ministry of Defence can have a strategic review and a long-term funding settlement, why can education not have a long-term plan and a secure funding settlement?
I really welcome the catch-up programme, and I campaigned for it, but my worry is that just 44% of the children who are using the tutoring programme are eligible for free school meals. The Sutton Trust also says that 34% of pupil premium funding is being used to plug gaps in school budgets—to fix leaky roofs, for example. The funding is not always used for the purpose it should be. The whole reason for today’s debate is to shine light into the darkest corners of budget allocation and highlight where we can concentrate funding in the areas that are often overlooked.
My Education Committee’s report, “The forgotten: how White working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it”, draws attention to how white British pupils eligible for free school meals already suffer from persistent and multi-generational disadvantage and disengagement from the curriculum, from early years through to higher education. That is compounded by place-based factors, including regional economics and under-investment, and family disengagement from education, all of which combine to create a perfect storm of disadvantage. Carefully allocated catch-up funding can support those pupils to weather that storm.
What Sir Kevan Collins was proposing, as he set out again to the Education Committee this morning, was more from the catch-up offer, to extend the school day, providing enrichment and sporting activities to promote soft skills such as teamwork, negotiation and problem solving, which have all fallen by the wayside during remote learning.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. During the last education debate, he intervened on me and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), in his characteristically inquisitorial way and pressed us to say whether we agreed with the extension of the school day and, if so, whether we agreed to an academic focus in that extension. I responded that we did support the extension and out-of-hours activity, but we wanted it to be more creatively focused and used quite imaginatively.
I noticed that Kevan Collins said today, in response to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, that he wanted to create a space for children to be involved in a much broader range of experiences—the things they have missed, such as sports, drama and art. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a reflective person. Does he now agree that the approach for any extended time at school needs to be along those lines, rather than the purely academic lines that he was proposing before?
Robert Halfon
If the hon. Gentleman looks at everything that I have said in the House, in the Select Committee and in newspaper articles, he will see that I have made it very clear from day one—the Minister will vouch for this, because I have nagged him about it often enough—that I absolutely believe in a longer day. It should be not just for academic catch-up, but for enrichment activities, mental health support and sporting activities; I have made the case and cited statistics to show that those also increase educational attainment. The reason I said what I did to the Opposition was that Opposition Members had been in the media giving quite confusing messages about whether they supported a longer school day. If they support a longer day now with both academic and enrichment activities, I strongly welcome that.
The mental health of young people has sustained worrying damage as a result of extended social isolation during a critical stage of their development. A longer school day provides opportunities to socialise and interact with many more peers than just having lessons can offer. The Department should leave no stone unturned to find underspend in its budget and re-channel the money into catch-up to make Sir Kevan’s vision a reality.
I present a proposition to the Minister. Schools and teachers have carried out the marking and assessment that exam boards normally undertake and are paid handsomely for. Of course, exam boards spent money on exams before they were cancelled, such as on creating and printing exam papers, but substantial refunds to reflect the lack of exam marking are likely to be given to schools and colleges. Last year, OCR gave back a total of £7.9 million, while AQA—the UK’s largest provider of academic qualifications—returned £42 million to schools and colleges, a rebate of approximately 25%. It is suggested that as much as 50% will be refunded this year. There is a strong ethical argument for that rebate to be used to fund pilot schemes in secondary schools to extend the school day, which will help to make the case for funding from the Treasury. Given that the Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the Government are seriously looking at this, I hope that something will come out of the comprehensive spending review.
I have made clear my feelings that the catch-up money is a welcome starter, or possibly what the French refer to as an amuse-bouche—a small bite, or even a big bite, before the main meal—but it should not yet be considered as a nourishing main course. I urge the Department to look at the recommendations in the Education Committee’s report on white working-class children to offer tailored funding at local and neighbourhood level and, as the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities also recommends, to level up educational and extracurricular opportunities.
The Department could start by combining the catch-up funding and the pupil premium in one almighty package, an approach that Sir Kevan Collins supported at our Committee evidence session this morning. Money would be available for pupils whom schools identify as in need—such as SEND students and those who struggle with mental health problems as a result of the lockdowns, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out—but there would be money clearly ring-fenced in the estimates memo for the most disadvantaged, and it would be microtargeted to reflect regional disparities in learning loss.
Only by ensuring that the catch-up programme achieves value for money and is focused on disadvantaged pupils will the Government head off the four horsemen of the education apocalypse that are galloping towards our young people: attainment loss, mental health damage, vulnerability to safeguarding hazards through persistent school absences, and a loss of lifetime earnings. Let us get these children back on the education ladder of opportunity.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who chairs the Education Committee, of which I am a member. This is an important debate. I thank all the school caretakers, secretaries, heads, support staff and teachers who have maintained our education system and educated our pupils throughout this very difficult time.
There have been major challenges, compounded by an unforgivable lack of planning by the Department for Education that often left children high and dry, without being able to go online for months. There was such confusion over reopening and exams in the first two terms of the year. Children across London have missed an estimated 103 days of in-person school—more than half a normal school year.
The Conservatives’ catch-up plan is not only woefully underfunded; it includes nothing on children’s wellbeing or social development, despite parents saying that this is their top concern for their children after the isolation of lockdown. The failing tutoring programme currently reaches less than 2% of school pupils. Of course we need the tutoring programme, but it must reach all the pupils who need it. Across the country, there is a large and growing disadvantage gap between children, and that must be the focus of the funding. A disadvantaged child in Wandsworth will be an average of four months behind others in the early years, before they start school; six and a half months behind in primary school; and 10 months—a whole school year—behind in secondary school.
Schools in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton have already suffered massive real-terms cuts since 2010, with a shortfall of more than £15.1 million in Wandsworth schools. That is £519 per pupil. One secondary school, for example, has a shortfall of more than £880,000, which is £841 per pupil. Schools really want to rise to the challenge of the catch-up. They do not want to see any child left behind, but they cannot do it without the funding.
In the Education Committee this morning we heard from former education recovery commissioner Sir Kevan Collins. As an MP but also as a parent, I heard his evidence with alarm. He said that the failure to invest in a successful catch-up plan now will set the course of the education system for the next 10 years, that inequality gaps are widening, that there is a huge impact on individual life chances and a huge impact on our national economy of up to £100 billion. He felt that he had to resign from that position because of the entrenched lack of political will to fund a catch-up plan that is needed—to fund the quality of teaching, to fund more tutoring for three to five years, and very quickly to manoeuvre this funding settlement in pace with the school year, not the normal funding cycle.
Labour’s catch-up plan would deliver: breakfast clubs and new activities for every child; quality mental health support in every school; small group tutoring for all who need it—not just 1% of children; continued development for teachers; and an education recovery premium, providing additional support for the children who need it most. It would also ensure that no child goes hungry, by extending free school meals over the holidays, including the summer break.
I want to focus quickly on the early years. State-maintained nursery schools are the jewel in the crown of our early years provision, but there are only 389 left in the UK. I welcome the Secretary of State saying in the Education Committee last week that he will “go in to bat” for them at the Treasury for multi-year funding. I welcome the possibility of increased funding for our state-maintained nursery schools and hope to hear the Minister reiterate those remarks in this debate, because state-maintained nursery schools are often left out. They were left out of additional personal protective equipment funding and cleaning costs, and the covid catch-up plan. They have even had to pay business rates during the last year. They are too often left out and neglected; we need to save them.
Special educational needs are another particular concern. I hold weekly surgeries, and almost every week I hear from a parent of children with special educational needs; they feel left out of the current system and are battling the system with the extra impact of covid. Recent research shows that more than 80% of support for families of children with special educational needs has declined during the pandemic. What is the Minister doing to tackle those deep-rooted inequalities?
I am disappointed that the Education Secretary is treating covid catch-up like another pot of funding for another cause, instead of realising the full implications of inaction now. Schools are ready to take up the challenge, but they cannot do so without the funding they need. There needs to be a far more extensive change in the way of working and far more funding. We really need to rally a national effort to ensure that no child, wherever they live, suffers any long-term disadvantage because of the pandemic.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to participate in this important debate on the education estimates. I have in the past worked as both a teacher and a lecturer, so I know from personal and professional experience just how important a good education is. On a personal level, education and social mobility have characterised my life. My family originated in the east end of London and moved out to Essex. Fortunately, they understood how vital education is to obtain the knowledge and skills required to succeed. Education gives us an understanding of the world around us and changes it into something better. It develops in us a perspective on life, it helps us to build opinions and points of view and it is very important for improving social mobility.
Since 2010, this Conservative Government have made excellent progress on education standards and opportunities. We should be proud of what has been achieved so far. However, as reported by the Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), there are still some serious areas of concern, including the underperformance and achievement of white working-class children. The Government need to address that. I fear that that group and others will have been further disadvantaged by school closures. I also fear that the attainment gap has increased because of the pandemic, with so many children’s education damaged by lost learning. An extension of the school day, with academic and non-academic content, should be seriously considered.
I am proud of the Government’s approach to skills and training, as well as the levelling-up agenda, which will unleash an individual’s potential and increase job opportunities. I look forward hopefully to the levelling-up White Paper, which I am sure will include bold policy interventions and increase and spread opportunity throughout the UK. The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill will also transform access to skills throughout the country, ensuring that people can train and retrain at any stage in their lives, supporting them to move into higher-quality, higher-skilled jobs, and equipping the workforce with the skills that employers need. This will be vital as we deal with the consequences of the ongoing covid-19 pandemic and for the future, post-Brexit Britain.
The pandemic has had a profound effect on not only our health but how we learn, work and live. School closures over the past year have had such a huge impact on all students, and a number of children are at risk of falling further behind and facing additional barriers. There is, of course, the issue of children being deprived of physical learning opportunities and a lack of facilities at home—whether in respect of limited access to IT equipment or a lack of study space—to enable adequate learning. I welcome what the Government did to increase investment, with more than £400 million to provide internet access and more than 1.3 million laptops for disadvantaged children. Young people have been helped during this pandemic and, hopefully, those in need have been helped the most.
Despite the Government’s work, there is so much more to be done and we must continue to do everything possible to ensure that no child is left behind. So far, the Government have committed more than £3 billion for catching up. That includes a £650 million universal catch-up premium for schools; £200 million for face-to-face summer schools this year; a £302 million recovery programme for the coming year; £18 million to support early years language development from next year; and £550 million to fund small-group tuition. All those things are very welcome and we praise the Government, the Secretary of State and the Ministers for what they are doing.
All that is, of course, on top of the £1 billion to support up to 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses for disadvantaged schoolchildren, as well as the extension of the 16-to-19 tuition fund—which is targeted at key subjects such as maths and English, which are so vital to all children—and the £400 million to help train and support early years practitioners and 500,000 teachers throughout the country. The recovery programme will mean that the average primary school will receive more funding than the average secondary school, to further support pupils to catch up.
All the things I have mentioned are very welcome, but the teachers and parents have done a superb job and we should praise them for the home schooling and all they have done over the past 12 months. Yet we know that the best place for children is in school. An extensive programme of catch-up funding and an ambitious long-term education recovery plan will deliver vital support to the children and young people who need it most, making sure that everyone has the same opportunity to fulfil their potential. Much more needs to be done, and I know the Government will be looking at that in any way they can in the future. What we have in the estimates is very good news. We applaud and praise what the Government have done. They know that the most disadvantaged children need extra help, but all our children need the opportunity to be back in school. We must make sure they have the opportunity, through education, to develop their skills and talents so that, in the future, they can do whatever they want with their talents, abilities, demands and desires. Education is so important, and we cannot let the pandemic destroy ambition and opportunity for our young. I know the Minister appreciates that and will do all he can with the Secretary of State and the Department, and I wish them well. Our children are vital for our nation and the future.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
The pandemic has generated unprecedented financial demands on the Government, but time and time again they have drawn a red line when it comes to supporting children and young people. The former Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, calls it
“an institutional bias against children”,
and Sir Kevan Collins today described the Government’s response as “feeble”. When will this Conservative Government wake up and realise that they are failing an entire generation of young people?
Let us start with those living in poverty. Some of the poorest families had to fight the Government to get free school meals during holidays, not just once but twice. Children living in digital poverty had to wait months and months to get a digital device because the DFE could not get its act together. After receiving independent advice from Sir Kevan Collins that the Government needed to spend £15 billion on educational catch-up, they committed to just a tenth of that. Just last week, the Government confirmed that they would go ahead with a planned cut of some £90 million to pupil premium funding, which helps the most disadvantaged children. That is not levelling up; it is a crushing blow. Why are the Government ignoring their own education advisers? When will they commit to a serious catch-up package? When will they take child poverty seriously?
Let me turn to school budgets more broadly. I welcome the fact that the starting salaries of newly qualified teachers will increase to £30,000 by 2022, but schools are being asked to meet those costs from their already overstretched school budgets. One school in my constituency tells me that 91% of its budget is already committed to staff salaries at existing levels. Simply put, it needs more funding to pay staff what they deserve while still investing in other areas of the school. We already know that the increased work pressure on school staff is leading to a retention crisis and a real fear of burnout. What will the Government do to address the chronic shortfall in schools funding?
Finally, I turn to the current covid crisis in schools. Covid-related pupil absence in state schools has skyrocketed: 375,000 pupils—about one in 20 children—are out of school for covid-related reasons. That is the highest rate since schools fully reopened in March. That is why I am calling on the Government to establish a rapid taskforce with a mandate to keep schools open safely. That taskforce, if set up today, should do its work in July, produce guidance by the end of July and give school leaders time at the start of term in September to get measures in place before bringing children back.
If the Government simply say that they are done with bubbles and self-isolation, transmission rates could go through the roof, opening us up to the risk of new variants, so that is not the answer. Instead, we need ventilation, testing, contact tracing, face coverings and a review of bubble sizes to make them as small as possible. The Association of Directors of Public Health has already indicated that it too wants to see a root-and-branch reform of the current measures. If asked by the Government, I am sure it would move heaven and earth to help them do that.
I want the Secretary of State to make sure children do not lose out on any more valuable time, so I ask today for the Government to commit to setting up a rapid taskforce with directors of public health, and to put a proper plan and funding in place to keep our schools open safely.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I commend and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate and on all the work that he and his Committee do. He set out very effectively the extent of the differential impact on children over this past year and a little. Like him and other colleagues across the House, I pay tribute to school leaders, teachers and staff, in East Hampshire and throughout the country.
I am speaking in support of the main estimate and the subsequent announcements from the DFE, which we anticipate will be reflected in the supplementary estimate. I also note that the Government have said that we have not heard the last word on support for education catch-up or acceleration, and of course that is not only about money. We cannot, for example, will into existence many more tutors who are suitably qualified and of the quality we would expect.
There is clearly a role for extra time but that, too, requires careful application and needs to recognise that there is no common starting point. Different schools in different places currently have very different school days. There is, by the way, room in extra time for academic catch-up. In spite of his extensive intervention on my right hon Friend, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who speaks for the Opposition, still managed—rather skilfully—to avoid taking a position on that question. Extra time is clearly not only about academic catch-up, because so much of what has been missed is about enrichment—about character building, personal development, and the sheer joy of growing up and being with other children.
To address those challenges we need a broad approach. I have talked about a whole-of-society response, but there are obviously multiple strands required from Government as well. That needs to include an acceleration of the measures in the children and young people’s mental health Green Paper for example, a refreshed school sports and activity plan, and much more. This is about children at all stages and all phases. I welcome the additional resourcing in the estimate for early years, and also the funding for the extra learning time for T-levels, as part of the upgrade of our technical and vocational education.
My right hon. Friend has long campaigned for a long-term plan for education. We talk a lot about building back better, and I think this should be the moment when we put that long-term plan in place, particularly on funding. School funding in this country by international standards is relatively high, and every year the OECD publishes tables that show that. There are many different measures, and although whichever one we pick, people will say, “You’ve picked the wrong one,” they all show that this country’s spend on state education at primary and secondary level is relatively high. However, there have been three issues with the way that we fund schools.
First, the Department for Education has been dealing for some years now with historical disparities between different parts of the country. In some ways that is a painful process to go through, but it does result in a fairer outcome.
The second issue is strains in the high-needs block. The reforms introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) in the Children and Families Act 2014 extended rights to extra support, but the strains on high-needs funding go wider and are longer term. Steps have been taken, but we need to do more. That includes, in capital terms, state special school places, but it also includes early intervention support within mainstream settings, including in early years, and a complete reappraisal of the way that financial transfers and some of the potential disincentives work within the system. There is also a case for looking again at how assistants who specifically look after and assist children with special educational needs are employed, so that it is easier for them to move between schools, and so on, as children themselves move on.
The third problem has been that the formula itself sometimes makes long-term planning harder for schools and is therefore less efficient. It does not reflect fully year-to-year swings in pupil numbers and the fact that although some costs are fully variable with the number of pupils in school, some are fixed at different levels—at the level of individual classes or of the school. The approach is not sufficiently long-term to enable schools, which are relatively small financial units in the public sector, to plan properly. It would be good to have rolling three-year or five-year budgets. Obviously, I know that the Treasury dislikes that and that, historically, whoever has been in government, we have operated through spending review periods, but there is a good case for re-examining that.
As we come out of this pandemic, children must of course be at the very top of our list of priorities, but it is also an opportunity to put many things that we do and the way that we do them on a surer, longer-term footing.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak after the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I will be making some similar points in relation to a different part of the education system. It is important that we consider the challenges facing the sector in its widest sense, in dealing with the consequences of the pandemic, and I would like to make a few comments, as chair of the all-party group on students, about higher education.
As we approach the end of a second academic year disrupted by the pandemic—and it looks likely that we are heading for a third in which some aspects of blended and online learning will continue—it is important that Ministers recognise the issues facing university students, who feel powerfully that they have been forgotten in this crisis. Universities and their staff have worked hard to offer the best possible learning experience over the past 16 months, but clearly in a pandemic the best possible inevitably falls short of what might otherwise have been available. Although the blended learning ahead may be partial, and flexible, Ministers must assist universities by providing as soon as possible clear guidance to both institutions and students on what to expect in the year ahead, as too often advice and guidance have been offered too late. Such guidance is necessary so that they can plan properly and, for instance, so that students can make informed decisions about accommodation.
The Government must also support universities in addressing those areas where the student experience has been diminished over the last year, and it is not just about teaching. A recent survey reported that up to a quarter of students do not have friends at university, over half feel lonely every day, and four in 10 reported a deterioration in their mental health over the last year. Those challenges are beyond the capacity of conventional or established university services to deal with.
Alongside the mental health impact, we also need to consider the fact that not all learning can take place online. Our all-party group ran an inquiry at the start of this year that took evidence from students all around the UK and on a wide variety of programmes. We expected those studying some practical subjects to talk about the limitations of online teaching, but we were struck by the breadth of the problem. One student, for example, told us:
“As a student of an art subject (fashion), I have found it incredibly difficult to get the same level of teaching during this pandemic as I would in normal circumstances. Without access to studio spaces and essential equipment such as sewing machines how am I supposed to learn how to draft patterns and make garments?”
Although, obviously and rightly, public health has come first throughout the pandemic, we need to address the diminished learning experience and ensure that practical skills are not significantly impacted in the long-term. Our report therefore recommended to the Government that they establish a covid student learning remediation fund to assist universities to provide access to experiences, specialist facilities and equipment, for skills development and more—those things that students have missed out on during the pandemic.
We should also recognise that many new students starting university this year will have missed school experiences and learning, which will need to be bolstered by an enhanced offer when they arrive at university in September.
The fund that we recommended should both enable student participation and support additional university costs, recognising the pressures on staff and the workloads that they face. As vaccinations rise and universities prepare for more in-person learning, the Government will need to support them in addressing the lost learning experiences. I was disappointed that Ministers have not yet acted on our recommendation, just as they have fallen well short on the hardship support that we felt was necessary, but as we look forward to the next academic year, they have a fresh chance to establish such a fund.
Throughout the pandemic, students have sadly been treated as an afterthought by Ministers. They have been forced to pay for accommodation that they were not permitted to access because of covid restrictions, they have lost crucial income to support them at university because of jobs lost in hospitality and retail, and their experience has been diminished through limited online learning. All of this has meant that students have felt neglected. Ministers now have an opportunity to put this right, and I hope that they will do so.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It says on the Centre for Early Childhood website set up by the Royal Foundation:
“Advances in brain science have shown that early childhood—pregnancy to five—has implications for our development that go far beyond our physical abilities. In fact, this represents one of the best investments we can make for the long-term health, wellbeing and happiness of our society.”
In commending my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for his comments on the main estimates day, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take into account where it all begins.
Lockdown has been a painful time for many new parents during the pandemic. The “Babies in Lockdown” report, produced by the Parent-Infant Foundation, Best Beginnings and Home-Start UK, laid bare the experiences that families have faced. Some 70% found that their ability to cope with their pregnancy and beyond had been impacted on by a result of covid, and only one third of parents expressed any confidence in being able to access mental health support.
Through chairing the early years healthy development review, I can tell colleagues that we heard directly from parents and carers about their experiences of having a baby in lockdown. We heard from dads and partners who did not feel that they could access any support at all for their own mental health, as they felt that the services were there for the mums and not for them. We heard how, in some cases, this damaged the relationship with both their partner and their new baby. We heard from a young single mum who contacted her GP, who said she should speak to her health visitor, but she had not been assigned one. When she contacted the local team, no one could tell her who to speak to. She did not hear from a health visitor until after her baby was born. I know that is not a DFE issue, but does it not highlight the importance of joined-up services?
We heard from a foster carer who felt sure that the baby she was caring for was suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome, but she was unable to get access to any information about the baby. We heard from mums who struggled to breastfeed because their babies suffered from tongue tie, and they could not understand why this had not been picked up.
Among the heartbreaking stories, however, the pandemic has given us the benefit of learning what could be improved and has cast a light on some areas of hope. For some parents and carers, a real lifeline during the pandemic was the opportunity to text their health visitor, to receive virtual advice from their GP, to take part in Zoom parent and baby groups, or even to receive breastfeeding support and advice on screen. The feedback that my review team has received suggests that, while every parent and carer longs for the return of face-to-face support, the vital playgroups and advice sessions, there is also clearly a role for the convenience of virtual services. Faced with the prospect of a bus ride to the nearest children’s centre, a mother with a new baby or toddler in tow can find it difficult to take advantage of the support on offer. Home visits and virtual support must form part of a new start-for-life offer for every family.
That is why the vision for the 1,001 critical days that has come out of the review that I am chairing includes the concept of placing in every local area family hubs that are both physical places with multidisciplinary support that is open access and universal, and virtual hubs that provide the convenience and immediacy of support for a family without having to leave their home.
Robert Halfon
I strongly welcome the support and campaign for family hubs, which are something that our report on disadvantaged white working-class boys and girls recommended last week. May I just mention this important statistic to my right hon. Friend? We know that disadvantaged pupils are 18 months behind their better-off peers by the time they get to GCSEs, and that 40% of that attainment gap starts in early years.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is exactly right: it all begins in the very earliest period of life. The later we leave it, all that happens is that we compound the problem more. Then we end up firefighting instead of preventing. Prevention is so much kinder and cheaper than cure.
To help every family give their baby the best start in life, we need family hub networks that bring together physical, virtual and home visiting services that put the baby’s needs at the centre of everything that we do. The babies born in lockdown and the toddlers who have had so little company and variety in their young lives need our support for their development. We all want them to be school-ready at four years old, able to learn and concentrate, as well as to play, share, and communicate clearly.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister is considering his Department for Education’s priorities for covid recovery, I urge him to be ambitious for these excellent new family hubs, encouraging every local area to adopt best practice in joining up their start-for-life services between health bodies, local authorities, and DFE policies. Let us bring it all together, putting the baby at the heart of everything that we do. Let us make sure that there is a real focus in Government on the 1,001 critical days—the period from conception to the age of two, when the building blocks for lifelong physical and emotional health are laid down for every human being.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The time limit has been reduced to five minutes forthwith, I am sorry, Mick, that we could not give you more notice.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister claimed that education was his top priority, yet when the man he put in charge of education recovery sent in his report, he casually tossed it into the nearest Whitehall waste paper bin. Sir Kevan Collins recommended that, in the light of the damage that the covid storm had caused for our schools and colleges, there was an urgent need of a catch-up injection of funds to the tune of £15 billion. In his response, the Secretary of State for Education, on 2 June, announced that there was a meagre £1.4 billion on offer. That equates to £50 per pupil compared with the £2,500 per child that the Netherlands has allocated. Poor Sir Kevan was put in the position of a latter-day Oliver Twist, pleading for more, sir. Like Mr Bumble in the book, the Government rudely dismissed Sir Kevan’s request. His resignation is an indictment of the Government and their record.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that total schools spending per pupil fell by 8% between 2010 and 2019. It was, the report stated, the biggest fall in education spending since the 1970s. In my constituency of Birkenhead, home to two of the most deprived wards in the entire country, this fiscal savagery plays havoc with the lives of a generation. To give one example of many, at Cathcart Street Primary School, there was a fall in spending of £117,000, equating to a reduction of £625 per pupil. These cuts created one lost generation of children. We must not let covid lead to another.
Our children have endured unprecedented disruption to their education. Many lacked the laptops and internet to be able to learn at home. They have had to cope with lockdowns and the exam fiasco, their free school dinners being whipped away from school canteens, and a health and safety regime that led to confusion, chaos and closures. The impact on their wellbeing, their mental health and their learning has been dramatic.
Labour’s child recovery plan addresses that. It sets out a programme, with £15 billion now, that can prevent an entire generation from being consigned to an educational equivalent of the dark ages. It can provide for breakfast clubs and new activities for thousands. It can provide support to deal with the mounting mental health problems that children face. It can provide extra support for early years education and put an end to the scandal of children going hungry. Spending this money today is not a drain on this country’s resources; it is investment in the future. My party’s plan can provide us with the teachers, doctors, nurses, care workers, builders and engineers who will rebuild this country in the years to come. I call on the Government to adopt the Labour plan in full and with immediate effect.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The backdrop to this estimates day debate is, understandably, one of a Government Department that has seen its workload, resource and structural capacity dominated by the pandemic, with all the profound implications of that for children, schools and families across the country. It is an inescapable truth that despite the immense efforts of teachers, nursery staff, social workers and so many others, not forgetting parents and children themselves, the past 16 months have been a torrid time, including for many people in my constituency. But now we need to turn the page and push on with our recovery.
To that end, in supporting today’s estimates, I acknowledge the not insignificant additional funding to date of £3 billion for education recovery. With new tutoring programmes, teacher training and development, including £184 million for national professional qualification summer schools, enrichment activities, catch-up and recovery premiums, there is real cause for optimism that we can now turn the tide on lost learning. Although I know that Ministers will want to go further, including looking at time spent at school, this package leaves plenty to be getting on with.
I particularly welcome the £153 million of new funding to provide for evidence-based professional development programmes for early years practitioners, including in the absolutely vital area of speech and language development. With research from the Education Endowment Foundation showing that measures taken to combat covid-19 have deprived the youngest children of social contact and experiences essential for increasing their vocabulary, this is all the more important.
Another key aspect of education recovery is physical education. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that last Monday, 21 June, the taskforce I chair on the future of physical education, with the support of the Association for Physical Education and, among others, the England rugby union world cup winner Jason Robinson OBE, published its report on the future of physical education, which sets out the benefits of high-quality, well-taught PE and how there has never been a clearer or more compelling case for it. As the springboard to a life of physical activity and sport, regular PE not only improves children’s physical, mental and emotional health but has a positive impact on their ability to concentrate, socialise and perform better academically. What is not to like?
That is why the Government’s continued commitment to the £320 million per year PE and sport premium recently confirmed for the next academic year is so vital. It provides the foundation for ensuring that there is great PE and a great PE teacher working in every primary school in England. To embed its legacy, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to do all he can to secure a multi-year settlement for the premium at the next comprehensive spending review, and wish him good luck with that. However, the recommendations of our report provide the blueprint for going further to really ensure that PE is at the heart of school life, that it is accessible to all, and, crucially, that it can play a significant role in our children’s recovery from the pandemic. I hope that he has read, or will read, the report, which is mercifully short, and will perhaps meet me and some of the taskforce members to discuss the recommendations in more detail.
I also welcome the consultation and call for evidence launched today by the Department for Education on behaviour management strategies, in-school units and managed moves. This is in order to inform new Government guidance on behaviour, discipline, suspensions and permanent exclusions due to be published later this year, and it represents an active response to recommendations made in my own review of school exclusions of May 2019.
Finally, as we have heard, last week saw 375,000 pupils off school—I can vouch for two of those—with only 15,000 of them with a confirmed case of covid-19. I am aware also of schools now closing early to comply with current isolation rules. That unfortunately means more lost weeks of education on top of the 19 already gone. Clearly the situation is not sustainable. Sending so-called bubbles home is, I am afraid, causing disproportionate disruption to too many children’s education, and that is not to mention the social, emotional, physical and mental health consequences, so I am pleased that the Health Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards have indicated their desire and determination to develop the plans needed for schools—and, I hope, for colleges, universities and nurseries as well—to be able to return for the new academic year in September as normal. By then, teachers and staff will be double-vaccinated, and, subject to the science, I think there is a strong case for secondary pupils to be afforded the same protection, as is happening in France, Spain, Austria, Israel and elsewhere. In my view, we cannot afford, and our children cannot afford, another disjointed, disrupted, difficult year of education. Thanks to the near victory of the vaccine, we now have the chance to forge a better future for our children—let us make sure we take it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Our country faces a tremendous challenge. How do we recover from covid, not only in terms of our health and wellbeing, but in terms of jobs, our economy and, crucially, our education system?
I welcome the Department’s education recovery fund, which was announced at the beginning of this month, but what the Government have pledged falls far short of what we need to support our already cash-strapped education system. The Education Policy Institute recommends that £13.5 billion is needed to tackle lost learning caused by the pandemic. Let us remember that the recovery fund intended for the whole of the next academic year amounts to only slightly more than the funding given to eat out to help out, a scheme that lasted only a month.
Education is key to our future. It is right that we invest in it, and any covid recovery strategy must recognise the value of further education. My constituency is fortunate to be home to the excellent Bath College. All education settings have faced challenges throughout the pandemic, but it is institutions such as Bath College that I fear will continue to miss out on the funding, attention and respect they deserve. Further education colleges and sixth forms have seen the largest fall in funding of any education sector over the past decade. As providers’ funding is based on previous student numbers, many colleges could face a significant financial challenge should their pupil intake increase.
It is a positive step that the Government have recognised the inadequacy of college funding in the “Skills for Jobs” White Paper, but that recognition must be backed up by long-term, multi-year, simplified funding. The White Paper could go much further and introduce a statutory right to lifelong learning to ensure that young people and mature learners are supported to engage in education.
Despite recent uplifts, further education funding still falls far short compared with university and school funding. For many colleges, that has meant narrowing their curriculum just at a time when we need to skill up more people than ever to enter the workforce.
For adult learners, funding is yet more unpredictable. Total spending on adult skills has fallen by about 45% in the past decade. A recent CBI report suggests that nine in 10 UK employees will have to reskill by 2030 as a result of the pandemic. Clearly, our workforce and our economy must be ready to adapt to a post-covid world, and further education will be crucial to making that happen. Institutions such as Bath College are already showing the innovation to meet that challenge. It has partnered with Bath Spa University and the Institute of Coding to create a programme to support learners to build and develop skills in resilience, problem solving, creativity and communication—all the skills that have already been mentioned during this debate.
Further education is about lifelong learning. I urge the Government to ensure that further education is at the heart of our covid recovery strategy for education. This is not just about catch-up funding, but about a long-term funding settlement for the further education sector.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
As a former special adviser in the Department for Education, it is always great to see a few of the details in the debates on estimates days, and it is great to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards in his place.
Obviously, there are several big issues I would like to raise that relate to my constituency, but there are a couple of overall points that many hon. Members have raised. The first, as highlighted by the Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), is the impact that the coronavirus pandemic has had on the most disadvantaged in particular. It has had that impact over the last couple of years, and it is still having that immense impact now, with so many children being kept away from school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) mentioned. That is in addition to the 100,000 so-called ghost pupils, who really have not been engaging at all in the education system over the last 18 months or so.
I know the Minister cares deeply about standards in our education system, and has really made it almost his mission—his mission as a Minister anyway—to drive those standards. I am really worried, as I know hon. Friends and hon. Members across the House are, that we could see the attainment gap increasing again because of the impact of coronavirus. I think the £3 billion so far is very welcome, but I would ask him to really press the Treasury to ensure that we do not end up going backwards.
On the measures that have been talked about in the press in the last couple of days, with the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary speaking to each other about how we can stop sending huge groups of pupils home, which has been happening in my constituency— whole year groups in some situations—we really need to get that sorted out. I welcome the discussions for later in the year, but the sooner they could happen, the better so far as I and the pupils and parents in my constituency are concerned.
I would like to acknowledge—this is for the Minister to reflect on a little—the impact that the coronavirus pandemic has had on many teachers, school leaders and support staff. Many, particularly my primary school leaders, have been helping by doing one-on-one checking up on pupils throughout the pandemic when they have had to be at home. In secondary schools, they have often essentially acted as a test and trace facility, putting huge pressure on the evenings and weekends, particularly of the senior management teams in secondary schools, when they have been having to find not only out who is in whose class, but who is on which bus going in. In a large rural community and a semi-rural area such as mine, that can be very difficult, and can cause a cascade effect which impacts on many children’s education.
The issue of rural and semi-rural transport brings me to a couple of issues in my local area. First, I would like to thank the Secretary of State for intervening earlier this year with the regional schools commissioner to stop the formal closure of Wolsingham School sixth form in my constituency. It would have been a big secondary school without a sixth form. It has pupils travelling huge distances at the moment to get the sixth-form education they need. I hope to be able to work with the Minister to look at what possibilities there are to enable particularly children between 16 and 18 who may have to travel up to two hours each way from parts of my constituency to get such an education, and to see if something can be done to help support some sixth forms in very rural areas.
One of the other issues I know has been mentioned recently, and again I turn to the Select Committee, is that of white working class boys. This is a particular issue in my constituency, and toxic talk of critical race theory and white privilege really does not cut any mustard in Consett, Delves Lane, Dipton, Crook, Tow Law, Burnhope or Willington, where, particularly at secondary level, we need to keep driving educational standards.
Locally, I have been visiting a lot of my primary schools, including Ebchester and Bishop Ian Ramsey in Medomsley, but also a small primary school at a place called Witton-le-Wear. It was built for 50 children, but currently has 100 on the roll. I would welcome a meeting with the Minister, if at all possible, to find out what can be done to at help provision there.
There is much more I would like to speak about today, particularly the further education sector. We have an excellent college—Derwentside—in my constituency, which is putting in a funding bid. However, I know time is tight, and I am sure that plenty of people would like to go and watch the football at some point.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The wind-ups will begin at 4.53 pm and we have three speakers left, so if you could divide the time between you until then, that would be quite fair.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This debate has some big themes, and it seems to me that the two biggest ones are, first, whether the Government are responding to the huge impact that the pandemic has had on pupils, their education and their life chances; and secondly, whether the additional resources pledged by the Government will be enough to make a difference to those who need help the most.
I want to focus first on the response. There is a big package of help that should be incredibly useful to quite a large number of our constituents, but the big issue at the moment for so many families is undoubtedly the business of bubbles having to self-isolate. I saw this at first hand last Friday when a secondary school called off a visit that I was going to make. A primary school has also called off a visit that I was going to make this Friday. My caseworker’s daughter has had to self-isolate four times in the past few months, and my chief of staff—my senior researcher, if you like—is also off again today and for the next few days because one of her children has had to self-isolate.
I have been trying to get the precise figures for the whole of Gloucestershire, but I am in no doubt that the figure has increased hugely over the past two to three weeks, and that many children are self-isolating for an average of a week each as a result of being in a bubble—often a large bubble—with someone who has tested positive. This is thoroughly unsatisfactory, particularly for younger children, on whom the pandemic does not have any considerable effect. It is disruptive to pupils’ progress, and given that we have now changed the rules somewhat for quarantine for business meetings, we should be able to do the same for our pupils, to give them the best possible chance to catch up at school by having regular lateral flow testing and being able to carry on until they test positive. That, therefore, would be my first big ask of the Minister today. I appreciate that it is not entirely in his control, but a rapid decision on all those in school bubbles having to self-isolate would be incredibly helpful.
On the second point, about resources, the Opposition have made great play of the fact that Kevan Collins asked for £15 billion and the Government came up with £1.5 billion, but actually, if we take into account all the additional parts of the package, we see that it comes to rather more than £3 billion. Clearly, the more money we throw at a particular issue, the better the results we should be able to get, but that seems to be a very large sum of money by any standards. The key to the exam question, therefore, is who will determine who is going to meet the classification of “disadvantaged” schoolchildren, so that the money goes to the right places?
In this context, words such as “disadvantaged”, “poor” and “deprived” are all incredibly sensitive, and they often ignore the fact that some of our poorest communities are actually the most resilient in terms of community strength. I refer here to some of the wards in my constituency, including Matson, Coney Hill, Podsmead and Tredworth. The schools in those wards are often rated outstanding, or have been outstanding and are now good. That just shows that the success of a school is not wholly contingent on how well-off the families of its pupils are. Great things can be achieved in some of our poorest communities, and the phrase “white privilege” is just very odd to anyone living in three of those four wards. The fourth one is Tredworth. The ward of Barton and Tredworth is entirely multicultural, and there is not a great deal of privilege there. Everyone is just getting on with their lives as best they can. Let us not try to pit one community against another. Let us recognise that there are lots of people who need help, often in very similar ways, in schools today.
That is the key to what I want to mention today. I want to give the Minister all encouragement to allow pupils to get back to school without self-isolating in bubbles for too long, and to give us some idea of how the term “disadvantaged” will be defined so that we can be sure that pupils in our constituencies get that extra help.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I shall try to be brief to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) to take part in the debate. Also, we all clearly want to see whether football is still coming home.
I start by taking the opportunity to put on record how grateful I am to all the teachers, headteachers and support staff, especially those in Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich in my constituency. Ministers and Department for Education staff have also worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, especially in my constituency, which has over 50 educational institutions.
I echo many of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chairman of the Education Committee, of which I am a proud member. He set out in his opening speech a wide range of the issues that are involved. I know how difficult it is to launch into the estimates day debate after having to introduce it last year in my right hon. Friend’s absence.
The Department for Education has a special responsibility to improve the life chances of all children in our country and to ensure that the most disadvantaged children reach their fullest potential. I have always argued that our education system plays a major role in the growth and progress of our society. It is the engine of our economy, the foundation of our culture and essential preparation for adult life.
Over the past 12 months, the Government have provided more than £3 billion in funding to tackle the devastating effects of lockdown on children’s education and wellbeing. I particularly welcome the Government’s national tutoring programme, which will provide 100 million hours of tutoring for five to 19-year-olds by 2025. That is exactly the sort of Government scheme that the country needs to ensure that our disadvantaged children receive the adequate support they need to catch up on what they have missed due to covid.
The national tutoring programme will be important for constituencies such as mine because Bury South is in the top 40% of constituencies with the greatest literacy need. Indeed, a third of the wards in my constituency are among the highest ranking in the country in terms of literacy needs.
My colleagues and I on the Education Committee have maintained that support should focus on closing that advantage gap and ensuring that those left-behind pupils, who have suffered enormously during covid-19, can catch up. I repeat my request to the Minister to meet me and providers from the NTP to ensure that everyone can take part in the scheme, especially those who specialise in online training.
The Department concluded last autumn that all year groups had experienced a learning loss in reading. In primary schools, that loss has averaged between 1.7 and two months. That was before the second and third lockdowns, so it is safe to assume that the position has worsened since then. We can only expect the level of need to have increased and we really need to take that seriously.
Furthermore, children with poor language skills at the age of five are more likely to experience social, emotional and behavioural difficulties later in life. Early language skills are therefore a crucial determinant of later success. Initial data from the second lockdown shows that any progress that was made when schools could open in the autumn was lost when they closed to key workers and vulnerable children in the winter. I am most concerned about the regional variation in the figures, with the north-east and the east midlands being worst affected and the north-west very close behind.
The new decade will be challenging indeed. Although the ambition of an education recovery plan is a good start, we need a long-term plan to tackle the attainment gap and falling literacy rates. I look forward to continuing to scrutinise the plans both in my role on the Education Committee and as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on literacy. We are keen to come up with viable solutions to address the severe effect of covid-19 on our children and young people. That should start now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The clock is not going on for you, Mr Gibson, but please be seated by 4.53 pm.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Schools across the country have faced stark challenges over the last 15 months and once again, I put on record my thanks to the headteachers, teachers, support staff and parents in Darlington.
I am proud of the Government’s work to help disadvantaged students in the north-east, whom we know have been among the hardest hit. From talking to teachers and governors throughout the last 15 months, I know the challenges they have faced and every day, I am conscious that we must do all we can to support them. I am therefore glad that the Government are providing funding in the form of the national tutoring programme among other investments.
On top of that, the Department for Education has announced the allocation of £483 million of investment for the condition improvement fund. Those funds will benefit Rydal Academy, Mowden Infant School and Corporation Road Community Primary School in my constituency.
As the Government consider their response to the Education Committee’s recent excellent report, I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the needs of the Gypsy, Romany and Traveller community alongside those of white working-class children.
I am proud to support the Government today as they invest in education recovery for pupils across the country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you very much. Earlier than we thought, we have the winding-up speeches. I call Peter Kyle.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is nice to follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), and his pithy but thought-provoking speech. I am also grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee for giving us a wide-ranging and thoughtful introduction to the whole debate, and for setting the tone so very well.
The pandemic has swung a wrecking ball through our schools and the Government have left students and teachers to do the heavy lifting of recovery alone. A student I spoke to just last week reported having sat through 54 assessments in order to help their teachers determine an appropriate grade. Rather than complain or give up, they carried on, despite incoherent and panicked changes to the Government guidance right to the last minute. From the chaotic mishandling of exams last year to the lack of timely guidance to teachers this year, and from the huge covid absence rates made worse by the lack of mitigation measures to forcing kids back to school for a day and then announcing the January lockdown, this Government continue to fail young people who simply want to get on with learning.
This Government are failing to match the ambition that young people have for themselves. In March this year, we thought that the Government might have listened. They appointed Sir Kevan Collins, a highly respected educationalist, to lead an education recovery review. They even told the press that our children were the Prime Minister’s No. 1 priority. The difference between the Government and the Labour party is that when we say children are our No. 1 priority, we actually mean it. Ninety per cent. of the recommended funding was slashed by the Chancellor. He happily butchered plans to help state-educated students, but found all the money in the world to fund a super deduction for the wealthiest companies in the land.
There was no investment in wellbeing after a year of intense stress, and no investment in social recovery or creative activity. As for the promise to address this in the spending review, Sir Kevan Collins said before the Education Committee today that he wanted to break out of this cycle. “Children cannot wait for another year”, he said. According to Sir Kevan, the attainment gap may grow by as much as 20% due to the pandemic. He warned the Chancellor and the Prime Minister that failure to act would make the situation worse, yet the Chancellor says that he cannot give money to every cause that “comes knocking” at his door. Why should students, in their time of greatest need, have to knock on the Chancellor’s door Oliver-style, saying, “Please, sir, can I have some more help to learn?”? No Government with their priorities straight would need students to come knocking at the door in the first place.
The Chancellor likes to talk about levelling up, but all we have seen is hammering down. Which students are being hardest hit? Those from deprived backgrounds. Which regions are suffering most? Those in parts of the midlands and the north of England that have had the longest lockdowns. Levelling up should be about people, not just bricks.
The Treasury’s refusal to fund educational catch-up is not just morally reckless; it is fiscally irresponsible too. According to the Education Policy Institute, pandemic-related learning loss could cost the economy between £60 billion and £420 billion. That burden far outweighs the multi-year £50 billion that Sir Kevan was asking for and the Labour party has backed.
According to the Government, we have entered an era of global Britain. Our economy needs people with the knowledge—technical, social, academic, skills—to compete with South Korea, Germany, Singapore and the United States. Instead, the Government are throwing a spanner in the works of educational recovery and the transformation in skills development of the students who will be the workers, entrepreneurs and wealth creators of tomorrow. We cannot have global Britain without global skills. The Government have been set a test by students: will they work across the political divide to help students overcome the current challenges and unleash their potential into the future? Labour’s educational recovery plan shares many similarities to the Collins report, and we stand ready to help find areas of common ground and to work constructively with the Government to make it happen.
The one programme that survived the Treasury cuts was the national tutoring programme, which was awarded to a provider with little experience of education. The Secretary of State for Education promised sessions for 6 million children; not only was he contradicted by his officials, but so far only 173,000 have actually begun tutoring. Big promises; little delivery—and all because kids do not matter as much as VIP contracts, tax breaks for the 1% of biggest businesses or royal yachts.
The Government’s failure to prioritise schoolchildren is having a disastrous consequence here and now. Just last week, 250,000 students were forced to self-isolate. Each of the families affected deserves an apology for the Government’s refusal to secure our borders back in April. They failed to prevent the delta variant from arriving into England in such volume as to rip through communities and threaten the entire recovery.
Because of past failure, we have no margin for error when it comes to the future. If the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation approves any vaccine for use among children, every student must be offered it this summer, before the next academic year starts. Such a programme needs to be accompanied by plentiful information so that parents can make informed choices in the best interests of their child, family and whole community. A child’s development and future success are badly affected by school absence, and that is a factor that parents need to consider. Such a programme can happen only if the Government start to plan now and are ready to act the moment that the JCVI issues its guidance.
We also need the Government to get a grip on next year’s exams right now and to lay out a proper plan for 2022 before schools return from their summer break. Students going into exam years have missed mock exams in halls and months of in-school education. We cannot return to a pre-pandemic norm in an instant. Teachers need to know what they are preparing students for at the start of term, not after Christmas, like this year.
The Labour party Front-Bench team is united in its goal. We have an education recovery plan in which investment in tutoring sits alongside wellbeing and teacher development. We have planned for additional time at school that is enriching, creative, healthy and active—and that includes school facilities being open over the summer, too, not slammed shut to most students, as they have been by this Government. For students, teachers and staff, this is their hour of need. I ask the Minister: please, do not let them down again.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on opening this debate in such a measured way.
I would of course be delighted to arrange meetings with my hon. Friends the Members for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford). They are both passionate about education in their constituencies and I would be happy to work with them to tackle the issues that they want to raise with the Government.
Throughout this pandemic, the Government have prioritised education. No child’s long-term prospects should be damaged by this pandemic, which is why we want schools to be open and have, since June 2020, announced a series of measures to help children to catch up. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham was right to highlight the incredible job that teachers have done during the pandemic in their multiple roles, not only teaching remotely and in class but taking on all the other test and trace and covid responsibilities they have taken on.
Raising academic standards for all pupils has, of course, been the unifying vision that has driven education policy since we came into office in 2010. In the estimates debate a year ago, I spoke about closing the disadvantage gap by driving out a culture of low expectation. Between 2011 and 2019, the attainment gap closed by 13% in primary schools and by 9% in secondary schools. Ending the culture of low expectations is key to addressing the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and his Education Committee in its report on white working-class pupils.
We want all children, regardless of their background, to have the same opportunities and quality of education that children from more advantaged backgrounds take for granted. That is why we attach such importance to the EBacc performance measure, which holds schools to account for the proportion of pupils taking the core academic subjects at GCSE that provide the widest opportunity for progression—English, maths, at least two sciences, a humanity and a foreign language. That is why we are investing in family hubs. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) that, yes, we will be ambitious. That is why we are transforming technical education and strengthening teacher training.
The Government also welcome the Education Committee’s report on adult skills, which are key to supporting the economy and tackling disadvantage. That is more important now than ever, as people live longer and technological changes shake up the jobs market, and as we look to recover from the impact of covid-19. The Government recognise the economic, social and wellbeing benefits of lifelong education and training outlined in the Committee’s report. In September 2020, the Prime Minister announced the lifetime skills guarantee, which will help adults develop new skills and find new opportunities at every stage of their life.
Last year, I spoke about the fact that, when we came into office in 2010, 68% of schools were judged by Ofsted as good or outstanding. Today, that figure is 86%, but there is more to do as we drive forward our plans to level up opportunity throughout the country, tackling the 14% of schools still judged as inadequate and needing to improve.
In 2021-22, the Department for Education’s resource budget is about £89 billion, of which £59.9 billion is for estimate lines relating to early years and schools, £28.4 billion is for estimates relating primarily to post-16 and skills, and £1 billion is for other critical areas, including children’s services and departmental functions. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire was right to emphasise the importance of early years. The Government share that view. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is right that further funding is being provided through the supplementary estimate process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow asked about the impact of the change of the census date from January to October. He is right that it is £90 million, but pupil premium will increase this year by £60 million, up to £2.5 billion.
Since the early months of the pandemic, we have been addressing the hugely important issue of ensuring that children are able to catch up on education missed during the lockdown period. Although we have spent £400 million on providing 1.3 million laptops and tablets, as well as internet access and advice, and although schools have responded swiftly and effectively in moving the curriculum to be taught remotely, children learn better in a classroom led by their teacher. In June 2020, the Prime Minister announced £1 billion of catch-up funding, £650 million of which was paid directly to schools as catch-up premium, and £350 million of which was for tutoring programmes, including establishing the national tutoring programme, which by the end of this term will have seen 250,000 enrolled, and the establishment of the 16 to 19 tuition fund. In February, we announced a further £700 million of catch-up funding, and in early June an additional £1.4 billion, bringing the total to over £3 billion.
Half of that money is being spent on tutoring programmes, which will mean that five to 19-year-olds will receive up to 100 million hours of tuition by 2024. It is targeted at those who need it most. As we speak, that money is providing a tutoring revolution, which we know from the evidence will have a significant impact on students’ education. No longer will tutoring be the exclusive preserve of families that can afford it.
This is an evidence-based approach that we know will achieve between three and five months’ progress for every pupil who takes one of these 6 million courses.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend will have to forgive me. We all want to get to the football match later.
We are providing £200 million for secondary schools to provide face-to-face summer schools this year, giving pupils access to enrichment activities that they have missed out on during the pandemic. We are investing up to £220 million in our holiday activities and food programmes.
In line with our evidence-based approach, a significant amount of that £3 billion will also be invested in teacher training. Building on a commitment since 2010, through the national professional qualifications and early career framework, we are putting £400 million into supporting teachers with 500,000 places over the next three years to help the profession be the best it can with all the benefits that great teaching has for pupils and catch-up. Some £153 million of that £400 million will provide professional development for early years. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) warmly welcomed that focus on early years, and I welcome his welcome.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow referred to the length of the school day. We are looking at the evidence behind extending the time that children spend at school and the benefits that could deliver, and we will be consulting parents, teachers and pupils about whether to introduce reforms. It would be a big change, which is why we are right to take a short period to review the evidence. That review will be ready in time for the spending review later this year.
We want all children back in school, because that is where they receive the best education. Schools across the country continue to have robust protective measures in place, including regular, twice-weekly testing to break chains of transmission, as well as smaller group bubbles. I reassure the House that we are also taking additional measures in areas where there is a high prevalence of the virus, including increasing the availability of testing for staff, pupils and families, and working with local directors of public health. Absence in schools continues to reflect wider community transmission, and where students have to self-isolate, schools are providing high-quality remote education.
The Government are providing the biggest funding increase for schools in a decade, which will give every school more money for every child. Following an increase of £2.6 billion in 2020-21, we are increasing core schools funding by a further £4.8 billion in 2021-22 and £7.1 billion in 2022-23, compared with 2019-20. We have put record funding into high needs, increasing funding for special educational needs and disabilities by £1.5 billion over the last two years, a 24% increase.
During the pandemic, the Government have attached the highest priority to education, schools being the last to close as we tackle the spread of the virus and the first to open as we cautiously travel along the route of the road map. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) like to intervene at this point?
Richard Graham
The Minister is very kind. I was simply going to ask him for a little elucidation on who will decide which pupils get what help, and whether he will share more details with us as soon as possible.
Nick Gibb
All our schemes are targeted towards the disadvantaged, but we also give schools flexibility so that they can use their pupil premium money and covid recovery catch-up money to help those pupils who are in most need. We give flexibility to schools because they know their pupils best.
We continue to progress our education reforms as we seek to level up opportunity across the country. We will continue to drive the academisation programme, which is delivering high academic standards through greater professional autonomy, accompanied by strong accountability. We will continue to ensure that no child suffers long-term damage to their prospects as a result of the pandemic, ensuring that young people move on to the next stage of their education and careers. We will ensure that schools continue to be able to support children in catching up lost education caused by the lockdown. The most vulnerable children are always at the heart of our concerns and central to our policy making and decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Robert Halfon to wind up briefly.
Robert Halfon
I will be very brief, given the events that are going on. There is actually a lot of unity in the House on this issue, behind the inevitable political barney. I thank all Members who spoke in the debate, particularly my fellow Committee members, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who is an expert member of our Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford).
I will just say that there must be a focus on a long-term plan for education with a secure funding settlement, on which there has been a lot of agreement across the House. I really welcome the Minister’s remarks, especially what he said about the longer school day, but I urge him to look at these 100,000 ghost children and make sure that they go back to school and we do not destroy their life chances; to focus the covid package on the most disadvantaged; to do everything he can reduce the attainment gap, and—he knows that this is where we possibly have a slight disagreement—to ensure that the curriculum prepares pupils for the world of work and does not just focus on knowledge.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will suspend the House for two minutes to make arrangements for the next business.
Building Safety
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call Clive Betts, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, to open the debate, let me inform the House that, as there are clearly a lot of Members who want to speak, there will be a five-minute time limit on speeches, which will be on the screens.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this important debate. I realise that the whole of the nation will be watching their television sets this afternoon, totally interested in the proceedings in the House on this important issue—but, seriously, four years on from Grenfell, the one thing that we should be able to agree on is that we should do everything necessary to ensure that a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again.
We have had the Hackitt review and the draft building safety Bill on which the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee did pre-leg scrutiny, both of which are welcome steps forward. I will ask many questions this afternoon. I probably will not be able to put all of them on the record, but the Committee will write to the Minister afterwards and set out a list of questions in the public domain, if that is helpful. First, when will the building safety Bill in its final form be published? Can we have a timetable for that? Four years after Grenfell, thousands of families are still living in unsafe homes and facing bills they cannot afford. In many cases, their lives are put on hold because they cannot sell the homes they live in and move on. That puts enormous pressure on the mental health and wellbeing of those families.
The Committee has produced three reports about building safety and cladding issues, and I have with me the most recent one, “Cladding Remediation—Follow-up”, which we published in April. Because it is an estimates day, I will concentrate on resources and Government funding—or sometimes the lack of Government funding. Do the Government yet know how many homes are unsafe and what the estimates are to put them right? There is a second, general point that we have repeated over and over again in our reports. We ought to be absolutely clear that we establish
“the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects”
for which they are not responsible. One of the questions we will probably ask—the second question—is: will the Minister confirm that that is still the Government’s policy? It has changed from time to time.
In recognising that significant funding has been made available by Government, let me go through the funds. On the £600 million funding to remove aluminium composite material cladding—the cladding that was on Grenfell—progress has been a little disappointing. Could the Minister explain, probably with an answer in writing at some point, when the removal of all ACM cladding will be finished and why there are still 33 buildings with ACM cladding where remediation work has not started?
The Select Committee was also at the forefront of pushing for funding to remove other forms of dangerous cladding. The first £1 billion building safety fund was clearly not adequate: it was on a first come, first served basis, which was not appropriate. It is therefore welcome that the fund is now £5 billion, but why are only buildings over 18 metres covered? What risk assessment has been done to determine that? Has an estimate been done of whether the extra £3.5 billion will be sufficient? Why is the £3.5 billion not so far covered in the estimates? Has the funding profile for that money and the years that it will be spent over now been agreed? If so, can we know what it is? Why have 2,000 registrations for the fund not progressed? Are the Government satisfied that those buildings are safe even though their claims on the fund, having been registered, have not moved any further forward?
Have we any further information on how the loan scheme for buildings between 11 and 18 metres will work? Ministers have been unable to explain any of it in previous discussions. They have said that neither leaseholders nor freeholders will be responsible for the debt for the loan, so who will be responsible? Have Ministers any idea what the total cost of the loan scheme will be? How many buildings will it cover? Do they accept that for some buildings it will mean a debt of several thousand pounds, running over many years, before the final costs are paid off?
Does the Minister accept that buildings under 11 metres, which are not covered by the building safety fund or the loan scheme, could still be at risk? How many such buildings are there? What risk assessment has been done on them?
Why has social housing been excluded from all the funds apart from the original ACM fund? Does the Minister accept the National Housing Federation’s figure that it could cost £10 billion for housing associations to put right building safety defects in their homes? If that is to be done without any Government support, do the Government accept that that money will come out of commitments that would otherwise have been made to build new homes or refurbish existing homes? What assessment have the Government done of the impact of not allowing social housing to claim against the building safety fund?
One of the biggest issues is that, apart from cladding removal, the building safety fund does not cover building safety defects. We know that there are faulty balconies, faulty fire doors, missing fire breaks and faulty insulation. Why have those issues been omitted from the fund? What risk assessment has been done of that? Do the Government accept that some leaseholders are facing bills of £50,000 to put right defects in their home other than cladding? Does the Minister accept that buildings that have claimed and received money from the building safety fund to put right cladding problems are being left with other defects that make their homes unsafe? In some cases, we are spending enormous sums of public money and the end result will still be homes that are not safe, because other defects remain that the leaseholders simply cannot afford to put right. Is that an acceptable situation?
Does the Minister accept the Select Committee’s proposal that we should now have a comprehensive building safety fund that covers all safety defects, not just cladding; all buildings, not just those above 18 metres or above 11 metres; and all tenures, including leasehold and social housing?
We believe that where individual developers, architects or contractors can be held accountable for defects in a particular building, they should be held accountable properly in law and made to pay. However, we know that those legal battles can go on for years and years, so essentially Government have to step in first to fund this work, putting the money into a comprehensive building safety fund, although we believe that industry in general should also pay. That includes the development industry, as well as suppliers of products, because often faulty products have been a cause of these problems.
We welcome the principle of a tax and a levy on the industry, which the Government have announced. That is a good step forward. To confirm, will the tax and levy produce money in addition to the £5 billion, or are they part of that, reducing the Government’s cost? Do we know when the money from the levy and the tax will start to arrive? Presumably the tax will need legislation, and perhaps the levy will as well. Is it true that a levy, if introduced, will be applied only when planning permission is granted? If so, it could be years down the road before a building on which the developers are due to pay the levy is actually built and the levy is handed over; we could be years away from getting any money. Will the Government confirm the likely timetable?
This issue will not go away until all homes are safe in this country. It is an issue that we will come back to as a Select Committee and, I suspect, that we will come back to over and over again in this House. This is a major challenge, and so far, bit by bit, the Government are moving steadily towards addressing it. All I would say to the Minister today is that, although progress has been made, there is still an awfully long way to go. I hope we will get a positive response from him to the recommendations in the Select Committee report. We will write to him further to list all the questions we would like answers to following the debate.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, who is always thoughtful and well informed.
The building safety Bill will be a landmark piece of legislation. I would like to see it introduced as quickly as possible, post summer recess. It will transform the regulatory system for buildings and put the safety of residents in high-rises at the heart of the regime. It will make it clear who is accountable for the safety of buildings, all the way through their life, from design to construction and occupation. I would also like it to drive a change in the culture of the building industry, because I have been shocked by some of the revelations that have come out of the Grenfell inquiry, particularly about the conduct of the building products industry.
Given that this is an estimates debate, I want to welcome the funding that the Government have made available. Of the £5.1 billion, if we add the £3.5 billion announced in February to the £1.6 billion that had already been announced, and if we also include the subsidised loans scheme, the tax on property developers and the levy on high-rises, it looks to me like a package of £5 billion to £10 billion, and it could well be in the mid to upper end of that range. However, it is clear that there are still an awful lot of outstanding issues that we need to resolve with a sense of urgency.
First, leaseholders in intermediate-height buildings of 11 to 18 metres need clarity on the financing scheme, and they need it as soon as possible, because uncertainty is not good. I understand that the loan will go with the building, as opposed to the leaseholder, but sometimes the freeholds of these buildings are not worth a lot, so if the loan exceeds the value of the freehold, how will that work?
I have tremendous sympathy for the plight of leaseholders who are facing extenuating circumstances and who are in this position—let us never forget—through no fault of their own. Every time I talk to a constituent about a new building, it exposes another complex set of problems, so I beseech the Minister to get dedicated teams at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government drilling down into the detail, building by building, and trying to resolve some of these very difficult and complex issues.
I also ask that there is some discretion. To give a quick example, there is a building in my constituency where the leaseholders paid for the remediation of ACM cladding in the expectation that the building’s owner would then apply to the fund. They have now been told that the building’s owner does not want to do that, but they find that they cannot apply to the fund because they are a third party. I would love to see discretion in that situation.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an outstanding case, and she clearly knows this subject from every angle. Does she agree that no matter how much money the Government allocate to this issue, unless it is combined with a resolution or rule that prevents leaseholders from being charged straight away, there is little chance of leaseholders escaping the unfair financial punishments that she described so eloquently?
Felicity Buchan
What I would like to see is a rigorous approach, building by building, so that we can come to solutions, because there is no question but that we need a sense of urgency and that the situation is taking a huge toll on leaseholders.
I am conscious of the time, so I will make a few other points. I am very conscious that we need to hire and train way more professionals—building assessors and fire assessors—who can get on with the work. Insurance is another huge issue. I have talked to constituents who have seen their insurance bills triple or go up fourfold. We have the template of a solution with Flood Re and the solution that we got to flood insurance. Let us be creative and see whether we can do something similar with high-rise buildings and fire risk. It is incumbent on the industry to take a balanced and sensible approach, however; in reality we will not be able to nullify every single risk. I have called previously in the Chamber for the Government to consider a tax on the building products industry in the same way as they have done on the property development sector, and I make that appeal again.
In summary, I welcome what the Government have done, but there is so much still to be done. It needs to be done with a sense of urgency, and we need to resolve these issues for buildings and leaseholders once and for all.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of a Select Committee, who has made some excellent points that I wholeheartedly endorse. I recognise many of the issues that the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) has just raised, because they affect my constituents too. It is really important to recognise that this is of course a UK-wide problem and that many of the regulations under which these buildings were built predate devolution, so even though some of the responsibilities now sit with the Welsh or Scottish Governments, this is a legacy of failure within the building and construction industry, in the way that leasehold operates, and on many other issues that we have discussed in the House on a number of occasions.
I have been contacted yet again in the past few weeks by residents in Cardiff South and Penarth. I have thousands of apartment units in my constituency. Let us recognise that this issue is not just about new builds; it is also about conversions. I have many old docks buildings in Cardiff Bay and docks communities that have been converted into apartments, and I have heard from residents in a number of those buildings who are affected in the same way as those in new builds. That is why I am somewhat disappointed by the approach that the UK Government have taken in not working constructively, as they could be doing and as they have done on some related issues, with the devolved Administrations, and with the Welsh Government in particular. I will come on to that again in a moment.
I just want to reiterate here that leaseholders should not have to pay for this. Obviously the primary responsibility lies with the developers and those who built these defective buildings. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, this is not just about fire safety. I have heard horror stories about flats that have been flooded with sewage because a foul water pipe, which was not even connected, was propped up behind a wall on a Starbucks cup. I have heard about sewage flooding into apartments, balconies that are not safe to go on, windows that are not safe to open, rendering that is not suitable for the maritime environment of the Cardiff Bay area falling off buildings on to cars, let alone the whole litany of fire safety issues relating to compartmentation, doors, fire alarm systems and, of course, cladding and insulation.
This is an extraordinary situation and the issues are very wide ranging. The situation in which residents find themselves is completely unacceptable. It is worth emphasising the mental health toll that it is taking on many of my constituents—those who have bought properties in good faith and then find themselves facing extraordinary bills while they have been going through the same difficulties that everybody in the country has been going through in the past year. Many of them face difficulties around their own jobs and incomes, and this has been an additional pressure on top of that.
First, I would like the Minister to speak to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and in the Treasury to urge them to sit down with the Welsh Government and answer some of the very reasonable questions that are being put to the Department by the Minister for Housing and Local Government in Wales, Julie James. On 23 June, she had to write again to the Secretary of State to get some basic answers. Let me quote from the letter that she sent:
“In my previous correspondence, I raised the importance of joint working and meaningful engagement on this topic. I urgently requested details of the level and timing of consequential budget allocations, following the large announcements that the UK Government made about the Building Safety Fund.”
The Secretary of State had previously replied and said that the Barnett formula would play in the usual way, yet the Welsh Government have not been able to get any details of the actual amounts of money, or when it would come through. The Housing Minister is rightly asking for the amount of consequential funding that Wales will receive from the additional amounts announced by the UK Government and when it will receive it. That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and I find it extraordinary that officials and Ministers have not been able to sit down with the Welsh Government, who want to work constructively with the UK Government on this issue for the benefit of leaseholders to answer those questions.
I hope that we will not only get an answer on that, but some further clarity on how the proposed tax and levy will work. Again, the Welsh Government are willing to work with the UK Government on this, as they did on the Fire Safety Act 2021. Again, we are not getting the communication that we would expect.
Secondly, on EWS1 forms, I recognise what the hon. Member for Kensington said. I am concerned that much of the new guidance is not flowing through. It came into effect on 5 April, but I am still being contacted by residents who are not getting the right answers on that matter from lenders, freeholders or estate management companies. What is happening on that? How many of the new chartered fire engineers and surveyors who are supposedly being trained are now in place and able to deal with the backlog of surveys?
I have two other points. One is that we need to look at the international examples. This situation faces many other cities and jurisdictions around the world. I think of Vancouver, which I know very well. The provincial government there had to pay out $3 billion to $5 billion to cover what was called the leaky condo scandal, with many similar issues around building safety defects. What are we learning from those examples around the world?
Lastly, just to be clear, this is not just about fire safety, critical as that issue is, but about all of those other issues, which is why we need to have the Building Safety Bill and answers to these questions as soon as possible.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The passage of time does not always heal wounds or lessen the pain and anger that people feel over wrongs done to them, to their loved ones, or even to their communities. Grenfell will not and should not be forgotten. The failure of Governments to ban the use of flammable cladding will be an issue that will echo for quite a while yet, and I hope that the Government now find that their conscience directs them to ensure that the people who have been adversely affected by that failure to properly regulate will be compensated adequately.
Stark, too, is the impression that profits have come before people. There have been reports that the less expensive cladding was used in some buildings in spite of concerns over its safety. I cannot quite decide whether the people making those decisions felt that fire was so unlikely that it was a risk worth taking so long as it was not their houses the stuff was going on, or they do not concern themselves all that much with possible future events in the buildings they are commissioning. This is perhaps one of the great divides in society and in politics —do you place people above profit or profit above people? Do you value people for the contribution they make to the economy or value the economy for the contribution it makes to society? I do not expect us all to find common ground in the near future, but we can at least agree that profits should not come at the expense of people’s health and wellbeing. Many of us have constituents who find themselves deeply affected by the shaking out of these issues—people who are finding it difficult to sell their flat, who need additional certification to get mortgage decisions in their favour, and who have found that some insurers are backing out of these properties or, alternatively, are demanding substantially increased premiums. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what discussions the team in the Department have been having with insurance companies on these matters.
There is a case to be made for people who find themselves stuck, through no fault of their own, being helped by Government and by the regulatory agencies. There is a case for the Government to provide moneys for the surveys needed to clear mortgage agreements and to provide the resources to clear the substandard cladding from buildings. It would also be good if those who decided that it was good business to install it were pursued to pay the penalty for it.
A good start from the perspective of good government would be to copy the example set in Scotland, where a programme of whole building inspections—it is being referred to as a single building assessment—is to be carried out, saving individual property owners the expense and worry of arranging their own inspections for an EWS1 clearance. That programme has been funded by the Scottish Government and the first phase is about to start. The safety assessments on buildings with flatted properties will provide the evidence needed of the extent of remedial works required. The programme covers low-rise as well as high-rise, and it will mean that people in whose properties no issues are revealed will be released from safety concerns and mortgage lending problems. The programme will then move on to remediation of the buildings in need, starting with those most at risk. It was not the Scottish Government who put these homeowners in this position—in fact, this cladding has been illegal in Scotland for some years—but the mark of good government is stepping up to solve a problem for people. I am at a loss to understand why there is not, or does not seem to be, a similar Government initiative in England.
That leads on to a point about making sure that the people who put this stuff on buildings in the first place are held responsible for their actions, not only where it caused death and injury, as in Grenfell, but where it has cost homeowners financially. All too often, any homeowner who seeks financial redress finds that the firm that built the properties is no longer in existence: the people behind the project are still building, but the company no longer exists. The company, firm or legal entity is dissolved at the end of construction, leaving no one responsible should problems become evident later, with homeowners having to pick up the tab or be stuck with negative equity while those who took their profits are in no way inconvenienced. Making it easier to pursue the companies or individuals who have built those properties would be a step in the right direction.
There is also a case for regulators to be given the powers to step up. The Prudential Regulatory Authority should be looking at the performance and behaviour of insurance companies when dealing with people in properties that may or may not have cladding of questionable flammability. I have heard of some demands being made that are simply not credible. The retrofitting of wider staircases stands out as a particularly ridiculous example. If the regulator needs to be given additional powers, that can be done. That is what this place is for, surely. Perhaps it is time to start asking for reports on the behaviours of the companies involved in the construction and maintenance of properties, including the insurance companies. Let us not leave it until there is another scandal. Let us not leave it to journalists to dig out the horrors that some families may be facing. Let us do the job here before it becomes another emergency.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I start by thanking all the builders who have continued to work on construction projects, including building safety measures, throughout the pandemic.
We need more homes in Stoke-on-Trent—affordable, safe and compliant with the strictest standards, as well as in the right places. I welcome the commitment of Staffordshire’s new police, fire and crime commissioner, Ben Adams, to develop and deliver a fire plan that addresses some of the urban challenges in Stoke-on-Trent. Sadly, those challenges include sunset landmark industrial heritage buildings, many left in a perilous, unsafe and sorry state. I hope that the heritage action zone partnership we have developed in Longton with the city council and Historic England will particularly help to address this and improve the condition of buildings in the town centre conservation area. I am particularly keen to see the redevelopment of the Crown works, a short walk from my constituency office in Longton, which are unfortunately in a very dangerous state. It is important to see new housing uses on the site, and I hope we can also preserve some of the most prominent historical features. I hope the levelling-up fund bid that we have put in to catalyse a safe and sympathetic redevelopment of town centre heritage sites such as that is successful.
Indeed, there are a number of such conversion schemes across Stoke-on-Trent, where we have opportunities to repurpose redundant industrial heritage sites that are currently in an unsafe condition and high street buildings to modern housing in historic settings. In addition, multiple hectares of brownfield sites need support to safely clean up the effects of past heavy industrial uses. We have the capacity to build without eating into the green belt or protected green spaces, and we have a strong track record locally, with 99% of new housing on brownfield sites in Stoke-on-Trent over the past year. This was particularly thanks to housing infrastructure funding, which has helped bring forward work on more challenging sites in in the north of the city.
We are only too happy as a city to relieve some of the pressures across the rest of the country, but we can do that only with the right sort of financial support to address the viability constraints we face: the higher remediation costs of contaminated heavy industrial land; the heritage deficit in converting historic properties; and the wider challenges of making development work in lower-value markets. Significant new development will happen in cities such as Stoke-on-Trent only with focused investment, but this will catalyse far greater private investment on top. The market, although starting from a lower base, is extremely buoyant—it is busier than almost anywhere else, according to Zoopla—with an increased appetite for good-quality, safe development. I urge the Minister to fully support our bids for levelling-up and brownfield funding for cities such as Stoke-on-Trent, so that we can deliver on the potential of our area as well as helping to relieve wider national pressures.
I particularly welcome the 5% mortgage, which will help more first-time buyers in Stoke-on-Trent South to own their own home. We need to keep this success going, providing better opportunities locally too, with good, skilled employment for good wages. We need to plan for the necessary infrastructure improvements as well. Let me take this opportunity to ask the Minister to support our Restoring your Railway fund proposal to reopen the Stoke to Leek line, as well as further developing our plans for a new station at Meir and increasing investment in local bus services. Of course, building safety is a fundamental concern and I welcome the £5.1 billion so far allocated to the safety remediation schemes. There is always a tension between the urgency of aims and the delivery of the right remedy, so I understand the need for the Government to get the measures absolutely right as far as possible.
One final issue I must raise is the danger posed by illegal cannabis farms in residential areas. The landlord guidance issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has rightly been focused on covid safety of late, but I hope the Ministry will look carefully at how building safety encompasses the prevention of illegal uses of buildings, including to farm drugs and fund wider criminality. Power supplies are illegally tapped into and fire hazards are caused, and the human cost is considerable. Landlords who are at best naive about it and at worst complicit in cannabis farming in their properties are a live issue in Stoke-on-Trent. One residential street in my constituency has seen two cannabis farms uncovered within nine days of each other, and in Longton town centre, for a second time in two years, the derelict Woolworths building has been busted by Staffordshire police, with 1,500 cannabis plants found. MHCLG, working with the Home Office, police commissioners and local authorities, must redouble efforts to keep communities safe from buildings that have been made unsafe through illegal uses.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to higher standards of building safety, and the draft Bill stands as a testament to that, but I ask that we also see that investment in places such as Stoke-on-Trent.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to be part of this debate about estimated Government spending on building safety, which is of course essentially about public safety. It is a very timely debate, given that the deadline for applications to the building safety fund is tomorrow. It is a fund that, this time last year, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee found to be seriously lacking, and it falls far short of the estimated £15 billion needed to address all fire safety defects, not just combustible cladding, in every high-risk residential building.
The problem goes even deeper, however, and is equally about the current height and product-based approach. Fire does not discriminate between buildings based on their height. It is illogical and nonsensical to exclude buildings of under 18 metres in height from applying to this fund. Eight blocks in my Brighton, Pavilion constituency are under 18 metres, and many more right across the country fall into this category. No wonder the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee is advocating a comprehensive building safety fund, alongside remediation that applies to all high-risk buildings of any height, irrespective of tenure; covers all fire safety defects, including combustible insulation; and covers all associated costs.
The Minister will be aware that the Committee, in common with many MPs and groups such as End Our Cladding Scandal, is also calling for a holistic risk and evidence-based approach that prioritises occupants who are most at risk and for the cost to be met by Government and industry, not pushed on to leaseholders. Yet we have constituents left in limbo and in fear, waiting for further details of the flawed loans scheme the Government announced earlier this year. The sums needed to ensure leaseholders do not pay more than £50 a month, as has been promised, simply do not stack up. Leaseholders in a block of below 18 metres in Manchester have been sent bills of over £100,000 each. It would take 169 years to pay back a loan that size if payments genuinely are capped at £50 a month without interest.
The reality is that the Government’s so-called solution will saddle people with debilitating debt and push them into bankruptcy, so the loan scheme needs to be scrapped and the gaps in existing support closed as a matter of priority, with responsibility falling where it is due. For every day that passes without the Government keeping their promise to leaseholders about fixing historical safety defects that they did not cause, remedial work is still not happening and people are still living in dangerous homes. I have so much correspondence from residents who are struggling to get responses and clearer information from their housing providers, which in turn are crumbling under the volume of inquiries and struggling to get responses from the developers they are in dispute with about defects.
Back in 2019, it was simply good luck that none of my constituents lost their lives at a fire in a block of below 18 metres in Pankhurst Avenue in Brighton. Residents lost everything, and many are still displaced and living in temporary accommodation. They are rightly horrified, as am I, that the Government’s approach has been characterised by doing the bare minimum. I invite the Minister to meet some of my constituents to hear directly from them about the impact of the building safety crisis and how that makes them feel.
That brings me, finally, to waking watch. In my constituency, I am aware of 11 blocks, totalling 686 flats, where there are questions about building safety. Two blocks with waking watches have to date incurred costs that exceed £703,000 for waking watch patrols alone. That figure increases every day that the Government do not intervene in disputes over remedial work and liability between housing providers and developers. In any case, the name of the waking watch fund is, frankly, a misnomer, given that it often does nothing more than cover the cost of alarms being installed in blocks with unsafe cladding. It does nothing to help my constituents who have been unable to get alarms installed in their blocks, and instead continue to pay for 24-hour patrols to alert residents in the event of a fire. Put simply, the waking watch fund does not cover waking watch costs.
In conclusion, the Government must absolutely deliver on the removal of all dangerous cladding from buildings by 2022 at the latest, but building safety is about more than cladding. More than four years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government must ensure people are safe in their own homes, that buildings are remediated when needed, and that those who are affected can move on with their lives without being saddled with lifelong debt.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
First, I would like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) in thanking all the builders and construction workers who have worked throughout the pandemic in Stoke-on-Trent. It is great to see new affordable, social and Help to Buy properties being completed. We need more homes that are affordable, safe and compliant with strict standards, including on non-combustible cladding, to avoid another tragedy as we learn the lessons from the heartbreak of Grenfell. We all agree that safety must come first in legislating for improved building standards. However, measures must also be proportionate. I have raised the concerns of flat- owners in my constituency who were facing real challenges with the requirement for an ESW1 form, even though their building had no cladding, and I welcome the agreement that the Government have reached to waive the need for flat-owners to have an ESW1 form when selling their properties, if their building does not have cladding.
The homes that are built need to be safe and in the right place, and for that we need to shape places to make them right. Stoke-on-Trent has no equal for friendliness, and the city’s economy is growing. With the right investment, we can deliver plenty of brownfield sites both for housing and for modern industrial development, but there are up-front costs to brownfield regeneration, and in our relatively low-value property market it is not currently commercially viable for developers to meet those clean-up costs.
Part of the reason for low property prices in the city is that our place has lost its shape, by which I mean that a raft of our potteries has closed, including some of the very biggest names that were lost in the 2008-09 financial crash. Those heritage sites are now in urgent need of repurposing. What we do have is resilience and public support for regeneration that preserves and celebrates our unique industrial heritage assets. The regeneration of Spode works is particularly exciting, providing residential growth and saving much loved and authentic built heritage, including as a hub for the cutting-edge games industry.
The legacy of the pottery industry is also present in former clay pits, and in that context I must once again raise the ongoing saga in Etruria in my constituency of a terrible sinkhole in Boatman Drive and the safety of homeowners, many of whom have not been able to access their properties by road for over a year. There are several hundred houses built on the site of an old marl hole, or clay pit. Homeowners are facing increased insurance premiums or are unable to sell their homes while the situation remains unresolved. I have raised it with the Minister for Housing, and I regret to report today that the subsidence is getting worse.
Where multiple agencies are involved, a clear process for resolving such complex situations is needed. I have met Baroness Vere, the roads Minister, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the matter, but regulations governing the residual and ongoing responsibility for the adequate remediation of brownfield sites and subsequent protections for new homeowners when catastrophic issues arise are within the scope of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Part of the task of levelling up is to address the legacy of the past. The scars of deindustrialisation continue to make the task of regeneration complex, as places such as Stoke-on-Trent address abnormal site issues, such as land contamination, decaying industrial structures and the enduring misuse of brownfield land and old buildings.
We used to have a specialist national organisation to support local areas in dealing with these sites. English Partnerships, set up by a Conservative Government, did fantastic work in supporting areas around the country in resolving these conundrums, unlocking latent commercial value. I am very uncertain where that help and support come from today, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government to consider whether there is a case for recreating an expert body that is properly resourced to support places like Stoke to resolve these problems and therefore accelerate economic recovery.
Cities like Stoke-on-Trent with lots of brownfield sites can be unlocked for affordable housing programmes. The city council is committed to powering up the city, and we are determined that our best days are ahead of us. We are already affordable, and with the right help for tackling site abnormals and connecting development sites, we could do even more. Building affordable and safe new homes and creating more and viable commercial sites; cleaning up and greening our city by repurposing even more brownfield sites; offering new homes and new employment opportunities locally; helping other parts of the country to protect their green belt—that is what levelling up is all about. I support the Government’s investment in building safety and welcome any future investment in ensuring the safety of developments on brownfield sites.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
We learned this month of the anger in Chesham and Amersham over Government housing policy. My constituents who face massive bills for waking watch and to repair defects in their leasehold homes are angry as well. Their anger is well expressed by Liam Halligan in the current issue of The Spectator, which was once edited by the Prime Minister. Liam Halligan’s article explains how the big house builders—Barratt, Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon —have used their excessive profits from the broken housing market to buy off the Tory party with donations in order to successfully maintain the current rigged system. Those firms have built tens of thousands of shoddy, dangerous homes and are now passing the cost of fixing the problem to leaseholders, and the Government are refusing to stop them. And then there is Help to Buy, which The Spectator says is
“a government subsidy focused on new builds which has overwhelmingly gone to the big operators, juicing up both house prices and profits further, while making new homes even less affordable for the majority who are unable to access the scheme.”
All this has been compounded by Tory failure on regulation. In January 2012, David Cameron made it his new year’s resolution—with a frankly chilling phrase, in hindsight—to
“kill off the health and safety culture for good.”
Tory Housing Ministers, seeing growing evidence of the need to tighten fire safety regulation, steadfastly refused to do so; it would have upset the house builders. The upshot was Grenfell Tower. NHBC, the privatised building control provider favoured by house builders because it is easier to satisfy than local authorities, signed off shoddy, defective buildings with minimal inspection, if any. It has been utterly discredited. Far from killing off the health and safety culture, Ministers have had to hand the Health and Safety Executive—the embodiment of that culture, which the Tories fortunately did not manage to “kill off”—the crucial new building safety regulator role.
The Spectator article finishes by pointing out:
“Powerful vested interests benefit mightily from this high-price, low-build-quality gridlock”
and calls for
“a full Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into UK housebuilders”.
Unlike other Members in this debate, I do not want to thank those house builders. Competition is absent from this market. The Government must now finally side with leaseholders and would-be homeowners, and take on not the building products industry, but the house builders.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The deadline for applications to the building safety fund is tomorrow, but it is very clear to me and to many other people I have been speaking to—people who are leaseholders in affected properties—that there is a lack of information about the scheme and the deadline. Surely we should therefore be asking the Minister to look at flexibility regarding applications for those people who may be eligible but are not aware that they are.
The crucial issue is that the building safety fund has had £5.1 billion committed to it, but we recognise that the cost of making safe all the buildings that are unsafe because of their cladding is in the region of £15 billion. Of course, that means that nobody in a building smaller than 11 metres would get any support whatever. I point out that nobody in my constituency lives in any building as high as 11 metres, and that is also the case in many much more urban areas than mine. But when we think that there may be up to 1 million people living in affected properties and that a few tens of thousands may get something out of that scheme, we realise that this is surely a despicable state of affairs.
Leaseholders who have done what Governments of different colours, but especially of the blue colour, have encouraged them to do over the last few decades—become homeowners and specifically those homeowners—find themselves stuck in unsafe homes that they cannot afford to make safe, and which they have no chance of selling because of that. They are utterly stuck and, in many cases, as good as ruined. There has been lots of talk about whether things might get better through the Building Safety Bill, and there have been lots of hopeful remarks from colleagues, particularly those on the Government Benches, but do they realise the impact that waiting for any news, good or bad, is having on people in that situation—people who are stuck and cannot move, people facing ruin, people afraid that the place they live in is unsafe and unsaleable?
The Government could agree to the principle of the matter today by agreeing to underwrite the cost of making safe all those buildings and ensuring that those leaseholders are not punished for something that was not their fault, particularly given that we know whose fault it was. In the first instance, the fault lies with the developers that built unsafe properties and Governments of all colours who neglected to ensure that the regulations were good enough in the first place and that they were kept to. Governments of various colours neglected the people and did not stand up for their safety, so it is right that the Government should underwrite the cost of dealing with the cladding scandal and recoup the money from the developers thereafter.
I want to refer to another matter relating to building safety that is of enormous and growing importance in my constituency in particular—the issue of Airbnb. I do not want to denigrate that whole model, the company or the people who make use of it, but it is clear that the standards that apply to people who use their homes for Airbnb are not the same as those that apply to people who are offering a holiday let. As I said last week—this is so important that I will keep repeating it until the Government do something about it—there has been a 32% increase in the number of holiday lets in the Lake district over the past few months. As hon. Members can imagine, my constituency was pretty full of them to start with. Perhaps 80% of all houses bought in my community during the pandemic have gone into the second-home market, so there is an issue with the safety of houses and properties. We must ensure that those that easily get into the letting market are held to the same level of safety as those that were historically within it.
The Government need to get a grip of this growing crisis, because it is about not just the safety of the houses but the sustainability of communities. Villages and towns throughout Cumbria are becoming ghost towns. People who were paying an affordable private rent of £600 or £700 a month are being turfed out of their flats in Grange-over-Sands, Ambleside, Kendal or Sedbergh, which then go on the market for £1,000 a week. I referred to it last week as the lakeland clearances: the clearing out of our communities, because there are ways of making more money from them, rather than having a resident population.
I ask the Minister to take note of what I have said about the building safety fund. His Government must take immediate action to change planning use for rental and second-home properties. They should become a separate category of planning use so that local authorities and national parks can do something to save their communities before it is too late.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Between April 2019 and March 2020, councils in England spent almost £1.2 billion providing temporary accommodation for homeless families. There has been a staggering 55% increase in the past five years. Temporary accommodation is now big business: 87% of that taxpayer funding went to private landlords, letting agents and companies, and every single penny was badly spent. It went to places such as Connect House in my constituency —a converted warehouse in the middle of one of south London’s busiest industrial estates, which housed 86 homeless families at an astronomical cost of up to £40 per night for squalor.
In 2010, there were 50,400 households in temporary accommodation. Fast forward through 11 years of Conservative government, and that number has almost doubled, and it now includes almost 60,000 children. For families stuck in that so-called temporary limbo, the only thing that appears temporary is the revolving door of Housing Ministers who fail to bring the rocketing number down.
This taxpayer-funded industry is completely unregulated. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to four examples that emphasise the regularity with which temporary accommodation law is broken. First, the law states that families with children must not be housed in B&Bs for longer than the six-week legal limit. Why, then, will 490 families with children spend this evening in a B&B where they have already been for longer than six weeks?
Secondly, on out-of-borough accommodation, the homelessness code of guidance makes it clear that local authorities must secure accommodation within their own borough,
“in so far as is reasonably practicable”.
It seems a fairly obvious requirement to ensure that parents can still go to work and children to their school, and that any local support and healthcare can be retained. Why, then, are 28% of households—a proportion that has doubled in the past decade—moved away from their home borough? Ross Kemp’s ITV investigation found that homeless families travel approximately 400,000 miles each year to get to their temporary accommodation. That is 16 times round the globe—hardly so far as is reasonably practical.
Thirdly, when households are moved out to different boroughs, the receiving local authority must legally be informed of their arrival. That same Ross Kemp investigation discovered that 60 councils—and, I suspect, even more—are failing to notify the receiving council.
Fourthly, any authority must, by law, ensure that any accommodation is fit for human habitation, but when I highlighted the appalling conditions at Connect House to Bromley Council, it confirmed,
“we do not currently visit and screen each individual property that we use as temporary accommodation. I’m afraid the scale of the numbers involved means this has proven not to be possible.”
How on earth can the accommodation be deemed safe and suitable if it has not been checked in the first place?
I say to the Minister that the law on temporary accommodation is broken—constantly. Everywhere. That is why I am calling for a regulator—an Ofsted, if you like, for temporary accommodation. We need an authority that will proactively enforce the law and rules that are already in place, because we know that services respond when they know that somebody is watching. I am under no illusion that this would build a single new social house for all those families who so desperately need one, but I believe that the widespread failings that a regulator would identify would encourage adequate funding and support from the Government and ensure better practice from local authorities, to make sure that the law that currently exists for taxpayer-funded temporary accommodation is finally upheld.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am going to talk about Sulgrave Gardens, a set of blocks of flats in my constituency, not because it is unique—if one goes round the country, one sees it is certainly not—but because it illustrates a range of perils that have not only emanated from Grenfell but ramified endlessly since then, beyond, I am afraid, the reach or competence of this Government.
One of the leaseholders wrote to me just in the past week and said this:
“Sulgrave Gardens, a modern purpose built eco-friendly development, the first large scale Passivehaus development in the UK. A modern day utopia where children can run and play, families live happily in a safe and secure setting, well it would have been had the developers and builders not…chosen to use the cheapest form of cladding, flammable ACM, they covered most of the development with it”.
He went on:
“Despite both blocks being over 18m high they fail the government requirement that the height of the floor of the top most habitable level be above 18m and so are not eligible for government funding. We have families living in terror and people’s lives put on hold due to unsaleable properties, the chaos this has created for residents of Sulgrave is immense.”
For many people—not just owners, but tenants—the hope of a dream home has been sold short by the appalling standards in the building industry. It is not just about cladding or other materials; it is about construction, design, inspection, the competence of a whole industry and its negligence over a period of time. Perhaps the Minister will explain what the 18-metre rule is about. How would he feel living, as some of my constituents are, on the fourth or fifth floor of blocks that are below 18 metres but clad in ACM cladding? They still live in terror every night. That rule has to go.
We have quite rightly heard a lot of about leaseholders who suffer the triple whammy of living in unsafe premises, having to pay up huge amounts of money and being unable to sell their properties and move on with their lives, but there is no guarantee that they will be compensated, even when they have responsible and identifiable landlords, let alone when they have freeholders who are offshore.
This identifies a separate problem, which is true of Sulgrave, because the owner of Sulgrave is Octavia Housing, a well-known and long-established social landlord. It has said that it will remove the cladding and that it will seek every way it can not to charge the leaseholders, whether that is done through the National House Building Council or the builder or the developer. Of course, it cannot apply for grants because the buildings are below 18 metres. However, if it fails in that, if the Government will not provide any money, and if it does not wish to charge its leaseholders—it does not wish to charge them, but it has not ruled it out—who will pay?
The answer is that its tenants will pay. They will pay out of their general funds, and the consequence of that, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has said, is that their development budgets, their repair budgets and their operational budgets will go through the floor. The four largest social providers have already said that they will cut their programmes by 40%, and that is with only a fraction of the problems discovered, so could we have an answer to this as well? How is the already lamentably small social house building programme going to be assured as a consequence of this, or are the Government going to play divide and rule between leaseholders, tenants and social landlords, which is what they seem to be doing at the moment?
There are other risks that social tenants have to suffer as well. Social housing has a disproportionate number of vulnerable people in it. Also, a large number of fires start accidentally in those premises. They often contain cheap and unsafe electrical products. That was true of Grenfell, and it was true of Shepherd’s Court in my constituency, where there was a serious tower block fire almost five years ago involving a cheap Whirlpool tumble dryer. Unless the Government are prepared to get a grip on this situation, to at least admit the scale and variety of the problems and to take the course that our Front Bench and the Select Committee have taken in providing a comprehensive solution, they will be only tinkering and playing at the edges. That is a huge disservice to my constituents in Sulgrave Gardens, to many other constituents of mine and to hundreds of thousands of people around the country.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to thank my fellow Select Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for opening the debate and for leading the Committee in its efforts to hold the Government to account on the national cladding scandal. There are many issues in the building safety crisis that the Government have failed on, and that failure is turning the lives of leaseholders in my constituency into a living nightmare, but today I want to focus my comments on one of the root causes of the problem: the requirement for an external wall survey, or EWS1. Buildings are deemed to be unsafe only when a leaseholder tries to sell their flat and they are asked by their mortgage lender to provide an EWS1 form to show that the building has passed its fire safety assessment. This assessment is not overseen by the Government; nor is it a legal requirement for building owners. This means that most unsafe blocks are discovered only by chance. Four years on from the Grenfell tragedy, the Government still do not know exactly how many unsafe buildings there are in this country.
The first step in solving any problem is to correctly diagnose it, but this Government have outsourced that task to individual leaseholders. As a consequence, the Government have consistently underestimated both the scale of the problem and the personal and financial cost to individual leaseholders. Costs are spiralling because the people who are deciding that the works are needed are not the ones paying for them. Private fire assessors have no interest in keeping costs down and managing agents have no incentive to complete the works quickly so long as they are still liable for any cost. Without anyone with professional experience taking charge, leaseholders are left to navigate the system alone.
Labour is calling on the Government to establish a building safety works agency: a team of Government-appointed engineers with an expert in direct charge of resolving the crisis, going block by block, assessing the problems, commissioning remediation works, paying for them and signing buildings off as safe and sellable so that homeowners can get on with their lives.
Without effective Government action to address this, I fear that an ever-growing number of leaseholders will have their lives plagued in crisis for years to come. That is why the Government must act now to end the cladding scandal.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
I thank my fellow Sheffield MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, for the excellent way in which he comprehensively framed the issues about building safety that we need to consider. I also thank all members of the Committee for their consideration of cladding and other safety issues in multi-storey buildings, many of which are in my constituency.
Today is the first opportunity to debate the issue properly since the Government ordered their MPs to vote down cross-party proposals to protect leaseholders. My hon. Friend was right to remind Ministers that the issue will not go away, partly because many Members on both sides of the House will continue to press it and also because of the impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across the country.
Only last week, I was contacted by a mother who shared her son’s situation with me. He is also one of my constituents. Trapped by owning a home in an unsafe building and facing unaffordable financial demands, he has considered taking his life to get out of that nightmare. Now in his late 20s, he was 14 when the building where he lives was built. How is he responsible for the faults of developers and the failure of regulators?
Colleagues will know that that is not an isolated case and that many of us represent leaseholders who face bills that they cannot afford and live in unsafe properties that they cannot sell. They are under intense mental strain, not just because of the huge financial pressures, but because their lives are on hold. They are unable to move, start families or begin new jobs.
The Prime Minister recognised the problem when he pledged in February that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 945.]
Like so many of his promises, it was casually made and casually ignored when we debated the Fire Safety Bill. Ministers must recognise that the situation is untenable. Any settlement that requires people to pay unreasonable amounts of money will not only break them but is doomed to fail.
The loan scheme that Ministers proposed is unfair and fails to cover everybody in that situation, as others have pointed out. It is also unworkable. Remediation will not happen and buildings will remain unsafe. Four years ago, many of the risks facing buildings were not fully understood. They are now, so the continued failure to act is simply unforgivable.
I met affected constituents from across my constituency again last week. They had heard the Prime Minister’s promise and they watched the Fire Safety Bill pass unamended with bitter disappointment. They asked me to make it clear to Ministers that their campaign will not stop until they see the action they deserve. They are victims of comprehensive regulatory failure, which we have a responsibility to address. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, it should be addressed by using the full resources of the state and then recovering the costs from those responsible.
Ministers mark the anniversary of the Grenfell Tower every year, but then bury their heads in the sand in the hope that history will not repeat itself. It is not good enough, and it is time for the Government to act and put an end to the nightmare facing so many of our constituents.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
My reason for speaking briefly in the debate is that I promised my constituents currently affected by the cladding scandal that I would use every opportunity I could to raise their plight. To recap my past interventions, the largest number of those constituents live in properties constructed by Ballymore—they are homeowners, private renters, leaseholders and housing association tenants—and as with many other high-rise properties around the country, cladding inspections have revealed a range of other safety risks resulting from the construction techniques used in the development of those properties, including a risk from the wooden balconies. That also reflects the regulation and inspection regime in place when the buildings were constructed.
My constituents bought, leased or rented their homes in good faith and with various assurances from developers, builders, landlords and regulators about the quality of their homes’ construction. Now, they remain trapped, fearful for their safety, unable to sell and move on and still facing potentially huge bills to make their homes safe. There are heartbreaking cases, and this is impacting on people’s health—their mental health in particular—and the stability of their relationships.
Ballymore informed my constituents that it has applied for building safety fund grants, but they will not cover the range of safety defects, which will cost thousands of pounds per property. After Ballymore residents staged protest demonstrations and there was a fire in a Ballymore property in east London, the company made noises that those additional costs would be covered. We await legally enforceable commitments from the company.
It is rumoured that Ballymore threatened to withdraw any assurances to cover costs if the residents’ demonstrations continue. I hope that is not the case, but let me make it clear to the Ballymore company that I will not tolerate any threat to my constituents and their right to expose and protest against the way in which it has treated them. I expect the company now to bring forward urgently legally enforceable agreements to secure the safety of my constituents, firmly based on the principle that the developer—the perpetrator—must pay.
Finally, in my constituency there is a massive construction programme of up to 4,000 new properties in central Hayes. I am concerned that the design and intensity of the developments, and, yes, the lack of community facilities, may well mean that we are witnessing the construction of the slums of tomorrow. I am also concerned that more than a decade of savage cuts in local government funding has resulted in a lack of planning officers and building inspectors to ensure that these new developments comply with basic environmental, planning and safety standards. I have a real fear that what is being stored up is the same risks we saw at Grenfell and elsewhere, and a new generation of hazards and potential tragedies. I urge the Government to take swift action to give my constituents the assurances they need, to join me in condemning Ballymore if it threatens to withdraw the assurances it gave simply because my constituents are publicly expressing their concerns, and to look again at local government funding so that we have proper building regulation and planning controls in place with sufficiently staffed local authorities to enforce whatever regulations are available to them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). All the speakers today have been very clear in their request for improvement and for things to be done better. I know that the Minister will respond to that in a positive fashion; that is in his nature, and no doubt it is his intention too.
This is an important debate because we have all, undoubtedly, been watching the events unfolding in Miami, where there was a terrible tragedy last week when a high-rise apartment block collapsed. That brings home to us all how fickle life is. I understand that the death toll has risen to nine and that 150 people are still missing. What has happened in Florida is a human tragedy in what should be unthinkable circumstances, but as we here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland all know only too well, such tragedies are real. The memory of Grenfell and its impact is still fresh.
We have a duty to ensure that the Building Safety Bill meets not only current but future requirements and that there are no conflicts between its provisions, particularly regarding the gateways, and the proposals in the Government’s planning White Paper. The Local Government Association has expressed deep concerns arising from the draft Bill’s publication on the retention of the benefits of gateway 1. I support the LGA in urging the Government to ensure that those benefits also apply to developments under permitted development rights. The building safety system is broken, and it has been for a long time, so that legislation is long overdue. I believe that debating the move to reform this process presents opportunities to enhance the safety of the buildings that we live and work in.
The LGA has also expressed concern that there is a lack of expert capacity to address safety issues. Any reform and new legislation must call for risk-based assessments to be more robust than just “suitable and sufficient”. The problem with that is that it can be open to a level of interpretation. We need to set down the parameters and the criteria very strictly, because what might be suitable for one property may not be suitable for another. Assessments must be tailored to each specific premises, and resources must be proportional to the risk to life and limb.
I am particularly concerned by the LGA’s report of a lack of fire engineers, and there has been a chronic shortage of surveyors and assessors with sufficient knowledge of both high-rise structural safety and cladding systems. Fire risk assessments are easy enough to do, but they are hard to do properly. Almost anyone with a background in the fire industry can set themselves up as a professional fire risk assessor and visit premises around the country, giving out advice to building owners. Even though there has been an increase in the training and prevalence of certified fire risk assessors in recent years, there is still a need for this country—the UK—to invest in addressing that skills shortage as soon as possible. Perhaps the Minister can give us an assurance that certified risk assessors will be recruited and that the dearth that there is at present will be addressed.
It is important that while we learn from past mistakes, any reform of the legislation is as relevant in the future as it is intended to be today, because it is the future of building safety that we are considering. I am my party’s health spokesperson, and I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on respiratory health and on healthy homes and buildings. I see a need to address the way that buildings are ventilated through air-conditioning and in general; I would like to see not only better ventilation, but measures for houses that are riddled with damp. Again, perhaps the Minister can give us some assurance that landlords of properties that are not up to standard will be required to do the upgrading that is necessary. I would like to see living standards raised.
The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in America has made numerous recommendations for improving the ventilation of buildings during covid-19. I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance to look at those recommendations. We should also consider the risks from other airborne contagions, such as Legionnaires’ disease, as we look to reform the building regulations and make buildings safer for residents and workers. I believe that there is scope for making buildings not only structurally sound but healthier places to be.
Remember that we are looking at building safety for the future. Buildings must be safer in all respects. We know how strong the message was that fresh air was a key factor in fighting covid-19. Eventually, workers will move back into office buildings. I suggest that, as part of improving the structural safety of buildings, we should also consider investigating the link between ventilation and the spread of contagions via air-conditioning. I believe that we should be looking at that seriously, and that we should include it as part of any new risk assessment framework.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
In the interests of transparency, I declare that my husband owns a flat that may potentially be affected by this issue.
This has been a very interesting estimates day debate on building safety. The cladding crisis, about which we have heard much in the debate, has made a mockery of the aspiration of a property-owning democracy, as families and young professionals find themselves literally trapped in unsafe buildings as they face life-changing bills to remove cladding that they had no say in installing. I know that the Minister will be keen to point out the £5.1 billion that his Department has announced to remediate this issue, but it is becoming clear with every speaker and every day that passes that this will fall woefully short of what is required to address this issue fully.
At this juncture, I congratulate The Sunday Times on its excellent campaigning on this issue and on showing the human cost to this crisis, because it is not about cladding. It is about people, and it is about families whose lives have been put on hold and whose plans to start or add to their families have been put on hold indefinitely—people facing eviction notices, people whose mental health has been adversely affected, and people who feel suicidal because they look to the future and cannot see a way out of a crisis that is not of their own making.
The Association of Residential Managing Agents and the Institute of Residential Property Management have published new data that looked at more than 750 buildings, concluding that leaseholders must still pay impossible sums of £20,000 each to fix smaller blocks, and more than £14,000 for unfunded fire risks in tall buildings. Although a fifth of those affected were contemplating bankruptcy, 23% had taken out loans. What is clear is that not enough due diligence has been done by the Government on the true costs of remediation; they seem to have reckoned the costs on the basis of guesswork. However, the real costs are now being revealed to those affected. The financial costs are life-changing; the human cost is incalculable.
The Government have said that their £5.1 billion fund covers only buildings that are taller than 18 metres or six storeys, with a 30 cm tolerance, because they wanted to prioritise unsafe cladding that was a greater risk in taller blocks. However, The Sunday Times reports that a key civil servant was recorded telling fire engineers that 18 metres was the cut-off point because the Government
“haven’t got time to come up with a better number.”
We are now seeing the reality for those who live in blocks that do not reach the 18-metre threshold. They face bills for stripping flammable cladding from their flats, which costs more than the flats themselves. As for those applying for a state loan to help cover costs, about which we have heard much this afternoon, leaked letters from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury show that, under the plans, loans will be low-interest—they will not be interest-free—and that, at an annual rate of 1%, the interest alone on a £100,000 loan would cost £80 per month, which means that the loan would never be repaid but would grow over time, making such flats even harder to sell. In any case, it seems that the state loans, which were announced in February, will not be launched for at least another two years.
Additionally, there is the complication of flammable insulation, flammable balconies and faulty cavity barriers. There is no funding for those building dangers, despite the fact that properties cannot be sold, or even insured for a reasonable cost, until the remediation work is carried out. Will the Minister explain why those particular areas were not included in the funding? What is clear is that more urgent and direct Government intervention is needed. The Barnett consequentials in Scotland—£97.1 million to address the cladding issue—are woefully inadequate, just as the sums allocated in England are inadequate. Remediation of cladding must not be left to householders and leaseholders. With eye-watering bills, they cannot afford to remove materials for which they have no responsibility.
Following the publication of the recommendations from the ministerial working group on mortgage lending and cladding, property owners in Scotland who live in buildings where safety concerns had been determined submitted an expression of interest in participating in the first phase of the single building assessment. Over 300 expressions of interest were submitted. The selection of the buildings to be included in the first phase has been completed, and building owners are currently being notified.
The single building assessment will provide clear evidence of the total need for remediation. All flatted properties will be covered: 770 high-rise buildings and many more at lower heights. This approach allows the Scottish Government to identify buildings that are at risk. If no risk is identified, that will release people from safety and mortgage-lending concerns; it may also save home owners the hundreds of pounds that they might otherwise have faced paying for an individual external wall fire review form. The cost of the single building assessment will be met by the Scottish Government. Once it has been established, remediation can be targeted at the buildings most at risk.
It is also important to have a holistic approach and learn the lessons of the past about the use of sprinklers and interconnected fire alarms, which are important for managing risks and potential fire outbreaks. This process must ensure that support is delivered fairly and that remediation is delivered on a level playing field so that the risk of people being left out—as we know happened in England under the first support scheme—does not arise in Scotland.
In addition, there are ongoing concerns about extortionate building insurance costs. The Secretary of State is aware of them: he said on 10 February that
“as with the lenders, the insurers are faced with assessing a new and heightened level of risk. None the less the Association of British Insurers now needs to step up and take a proportionate risk-based approach...Insurers should be pricing that risk correctly and not passing on those costs or even profiteering”.—[Official Report, 10 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 341-42.]
Will the Minister update the House on the matter? Anecdotally, we have all heard about householders receiving letters telling them that their insurance is to be terminated or that its cost will be raised so dramatically that it becomes unaffordable overnight. The Secretary of State said in February that the Government were prepared to step in as a last resort if engagement with the insurance industry did not improve matters. Is that still the case? If so, how bad do matters have to become before the Government step in?
We need more funding. That cannot be said too often, because the sums set aside are simply not adequate to the task at hand. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee indicated as much in the report that it published in April, putting the full cost of fire safety remediation at up to £15 billion and calling for the establishment of a comprehensive building safety fund to cover the cost of all remediation works on buildings of any height, to be fully funded by Government and the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) pointed out, it is really important that the industry takes its responsibility on the issue seriously. That sounds eminently sensible, and I hope that the Government’s response to the Committee’s report is positive; I know that it is due to be published soon.
I say to the Minister that this is one of the great scandals of our generation. How much misery do those affected have to go through before there is a fair and comprehensive solution to this crisis? When will sufficient funding be made available so that all who have been conned by poor cladding, flammable insulation and faulty cavity barriers can access the level of support that they need so that they can just get on with their lives?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today, particularly the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who introduced the debate very powerfully—and other members of my former Select Committee.
Before I talk about the building safety scandal on our shores, I want to echo the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and Grenfell United in recognising the horror of what happened at Champlain Towers in Miami last Thursday. My thoughts go out to the families of those who lost loved ones and to the rescue teams now tasked with working around the clock to find the 150 people who are still missing.
As we have heard this afternoon, four years on from the Grenfell fire in which 72 people lost their lives, hundreds of thousands of people the length and breadth of our country and in Wales and Scotland are living in buildings still wrapped in flammable cladding, constructed with missing fire breaks and insulated with inappropriate materials. They are still paying thousands of pounds for round-the-clock waking watch schemes, with insurance premiums out of control. These are just elements of the day-to-day nightmare that is the building safety scandal, a horror show amplified by the inertia of Ministers and the incumbent of No. 10.
Today’s debate, with passionate and informed contributions from 18 hon. and right hon. Members from across the House, has reminded me of two principal questions that I asked of Ministers some time ago. First, are buildings and the people living in them markedly safer four years on from the Grenfell tragedy? The answer, I am afraid, is again no. Secondly, has the Government’s response been extensive and at pace? We have heard from across the Chamber that that is certainly not the case. It seems that an intergalactic black hole has more transparency than the workings of the building safety fund. The fact that only 10p in every pound has gone out of the door adds another dimension to this scandal for leaseholders. Although, as has rightly been pointed out, social housing providers are excluded, the Government, quite frankly, need to get a grip.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted, residents in his constituency are faced with threats from the developer Ballymore and have been jumping through hoops to apply for the building safety fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who speaks very passionately on these issues, raised the heartbreaking cases of her constituents who are unable to sell flats; young families trapped by the EWS1 chaos, which still hinders over 1 million people, despite Government promises that that is no longer the case—just not reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) cited the mother of his young constituent who dreamed of buying a home, but is now faced with an unaffordable bill and has considered taking his own life—real stories.
In addition, we heard from the hon. Members for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Strangford and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). All echoed the same stories and everyday experiences, bringing hundreds of thousands of voices alive in the House and shining a light on those trapped in this scandal and crying out for justice.
Another real-life story is one that was highlighted by the Chair of the Select Committee, and which I am sure the Minister can only confirm today. The Government still do not know the number of buildings truly at risk because they have failed to create a risk register, a priority that the Opposition call for once again today. We also call for the establishment of the building works agency to turbocharge this process, with a crack team of experts to take hold of the crisis from start to finish.
The Government’s response to this crisis has been one of dither and delay, with legislation coming down the line—who knows when?—and the building safety fund as a reaction to determined campaigners and strong voices in Parliament from across the piece. However, the size and scope of the fund, as echoed across the Chamber today, is not sufficient, and the remediation of buildings has been carried out at a snail’s pace. Some 2,820 applications have been made to the building safety fund, with only 156 fully approved so far, and with the extended deadline coming to an end tomorrow. We have a system of first come, first served, with gagging orders and chaos hardwired into it. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people wait to hear about the details of the unwanted loans to pay for this toxic mess of deregulation. It is developers and donors—many to the Conservative party—who are responsible for this mess, not leaseholders.
To make matters worse, we now have the ludicrous situation where some management agents, from Manchester to Birmingham to London, are siphoning off up to £500 million in fees, which could fix up to 250 blocks. Others say that their experience of the application process has been like knitting fog. The Secretary of State is not just Bob the bad builder, but Captain Chaos when it comes to the public purse.
In conclusion, the Government have the opportunity today to reset their approach and get a grip of the building safety crisis; to respond to advice from the Select Committee and its Chair; to stand up for leaseholders and protect them with deeds, making good on the promises repeated 17 times that they would not pay historical remediation costs; to establish a building works agency, with experts in the field; to get a grip on this crisis from start to end, building to building; to provide holistic risk assessments; and to fund works up front, sign them off, and recover from what has been done by those who are responsible for this mess, including the donors who have given £11 million since the Conservative Prime Minister came to power. That is the way that we create pace while protecting the public purse and leaseholders. That is the way that we do the right thing to make people and buildings safe.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
May I begin by putting on record my thanks to all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate? It has been a passionate and extremely well informed debate. I know that everybody here agrees that we all want every home built in this country to be decent, to be safe and to be secure, and that has been echoed right across the House today.
It also feels especially poignant to be speaking on this subject shortly after the fourth anniversary of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. No community should ever have to go through what victims and their families have suffered. That is why we have been taking action to ensure that remediation takes place as fast as possible, with funding targeted to where it is needed most. It is why we are taking action not just to make existing homes safer, but to fix the system to ensure that new homes are designed, built and kept safe to ensure that a tragedy such as Grenfell never happens again.
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for opening the debate in such a rounded and informed manner. He did so in comprehensive style, providing a long list of questions, which he very kindly suggested that he might put to me in writing. I will try to address some of them in the course of my response, but if I do not catch all of them, I will ensure that they are answered in writing.
A number of colleagues raised the issue of cladding remediation. We believe that it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about the unaffordable cost of fixing unsafe cladding systems, which, through no fault of their own, were put on their buildings. That is not proportionate and it is not fair. I understand the frustration, the worry, the heartache and the anger that the issue must cause to so many people. Wherever we are able, we will provide support to protect leaseholders from large-scale cladding and remediation costs. It will protect them from the costs of replacing unsafe cladding and make sure that people are safe and feel safe in their homes.
Luke Hall
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must get through the many points that have been raised. I want to try to answer as many as I can and leave time for the Chairman of the Select Committee to sum up. If I get through all the questions, I will certainly give way.
We are trying to take a safety-led approach. We have prioritised high-rise buildings of 18 metres and above, a point that was raised a number of times today. We have put in place a funding package of more than £5 billion for the building safety programme. That is the largest ever Government investment in building safety and it has been designed particularly to accelerate the pace of work on remediating the highest-risk and most expensive defects related to unsafe cladding such as ACM cladding and high-pressure laminates, first filling in where developers or building owners have been unable or simply unwilling to pay. Despite many of the challenges of the past months, we have made significant progress. Over 95% of high-rise buildings with unsafe ACM cladding identified by the beginning of last year have now been remediated or works are on site right now getting on with the job. Some 15,000 homes are now clear of unsafe ACM cladding, with the work finished.
Support goes well beyond ACM cladding removal. Where there are buildings that have other unsafe cladding systems, we are taking measures to protect residents’ safety and their exposure to disproportionate costs. Our building safety fund will remove unsafe non-ACM cladding on high-rise buildings, get that cladding replaced, and get it done as fast as possible. Over 1,000 decisions have been made. Despite many building owners failing to provide the basic information required, we have already allocated over £400 million, with 685 buildings now proceeding with a full application. With the announcement in February of an additional £3.5 billion of funding being made available, we will soon be able to extend that support to even more affected households. The public funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility for failures that led to unsafe cladding materials being put on these buildings in the first place. We expect responsible organisations to live up to their obligations. Where they have not, we have supported, and will continue to support, enforcement actions to compel them to do so.
We are also determined to ensure that these high-rise buildings are somewhere decent, safe and secure, and can be bought with a mortgage sold without unnecessary red tape and insured at a fair price. The lending and insurance industries continue to be risk-averse when it comes to high-rise residential buildings. That is why we are working to inject a more proportionate approach into the market, and that is bearing fruit. The majority of lenders—about 80% of the mortgage market—now take a less risk-averse approach to the assessment of high-rise buildings.
I am pleased that the guidance from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors means that nearly half a million flat owners will no longer need to go through the onerous process of requesting an EWS1 form. Recent data from one of the major lenders suggests that an EWS1 already exists for 50% of mortgage applications where one has been requested, and we are working to ensure that this picture continues to improve. Lenders are also reporting that fewer flats require an EWS1, and of that those that do, many do not need expensive remediation work to be carried out. This will make a huge difference to house owners and potential buyers as well.
For buildings that might need further investigations, we are making that easier by providing nearly £700,000 of funding to train up to 2,000 surveyors, working with the British Standards Institution to set standards and develop a bespoke insurance model to ensure that surveyors can continue to pick up this work. We recognise that access to affordable building insurance for high-rise buildings is an issue, and we are working with the industry to support market solutions. Some have already decided to step into the market for new customers, and of course we want others to follow.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) raised the issue of building industry contributions. We have been clear that building owners and the industry should make buildings safe without passing costs on to leaseholders. Owners should consider all routes to meet costs, protecting leaseholders where they can—for example, through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor-quality work. We have seen many responsible developers and building owners doing this. Taylor Wimpey has set aside £165 million, Barratts £82 million, Persimmon £75 million, and Bellway £130 million. But where companies have not lived up to their responsibilities, it would be unfair for taxpayers, many of whom are not homeowners themselves, to foot the bill. That is why we have announced a new developer levy and a new tax ensuring that the industry makes a fair contribution to the cost of remediating historical safety defects. That will target developers seeking permission to build higher-rise buildings in England under the new regime that we are introducing through the building safety Bill, and we have already set out to consult on a new tax that would be levied on the largest housing developers.
I note the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) of a tax on building products. I thank her for that and I am happy to discuss it with her further. A number of hon. Members mentioned the building safety Bill, and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) asked when it will be published. I know he hears the word “imminent” many times, but this truly is imminent, and I can assure him of that.
We must ensure, as we look to the future, that nobody is put at risk by unsafe homes again. We must put in place proactive mechanisms for managing fire and structural safety risks, as well as ensuring that residents and leaseholders are kept safe and feel empowered to tackle safety defects and shoddy workmanship. That is what the building safety Bill aims to deliver through the biggest improvement to building safety for a generation. It will ensure greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the life cycle of buildings.
Building on the Fire Safety Act 2021, the building safety Bill will establish a new building safety regulator to swiftly hold to account anybody who does not follow the rules. It will ensure that products used in the construction of buildings are bound by rigorous safety standards, and it will give residents a stronger voice in the system through the creation of a statutory residents panel, which will empower residents to influence and contribute to the work of the building safety regulator. Additionally, a new building safety charge will give leaseholders greater transparency about the costs incurred in maintaining a safe building in the new building safety regime, and the new homes ombudsman will improve redress for new build homebuyers, avoiding the need to pursue costly redress through the courts.
It is right that we have prioritised action on high-rise buildings, but where the risk to multiple households is greater when fire spreads, we are also acting decisively to remediate lower-rise residential buildings of between 11 metres and 18 metres. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington again raised this issue, among many others. We are establishing a finance scheme to ensure that that cladding can be remediated where that is needed. It means leaseholders will never have to pay more than £50 a month. We are working now to develop the details of the scheme to ensure that it protects leaseholders, prioritises affordability and accelerates remediation. We will provide more detail on the scheme as soon as we are able to, and we are working hard to make progress now.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) talked about waking watch. We absolutely recognise that some leaseholders have been unjustly left picking up the bill for interim safety measures. That is why the Secretary of State announced a £30 million waking watch scheme. This is paying for the installation of alarms in between 300 and 460 buildings, benefiting over 26,500 leaseholders, who are expected to save over £137,000 a month.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) talked about engagement with the Welsh Government. The letter he sent on 23 June raised a number of issues, and I will absolutely make sure that it is responded to.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) talked about the need to invest in Stoke-on-Trent to make sure that regeneration opens up brownfield developments in the city. They took this opportunity to outline the components of their levelling-up fund bid. I absolutely note that and their enthusiasm for the success of the bid, and I thank them for it.
Despite the challenges of the pandemic, we have made progress. We have accelerated support to drive forward the remediation of unsafe cladding systems. Over 95% of high-rise buildings identified at the beginning of last year as having unsafe ACM cladding are now having it removed—the works are under way there. We have strong Government support to protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs. We want to be fair to taxpayers, while reassuring lenders that remediation costs will not become unmanageable. This will be a complete overhaul of the regulatory framework for fire and structural safety, led by a once-in-a-generation change to the building safety framework, with sanctions to tackle irresponsible behaviour to ensure people are safe and feel safe in their own homes. We will continue to work tirelessly to bring in the lasting change we need so that everyone in our country lives somewhere that is decent, safe and secure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The House may wish to know that England have beaten Germany 2-0.
Mr Betts
Perhaps we could hope for the same result for the Select Committee vis-à-vis the Government when we come to their response to the building safety Bill.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, and this is clearly a very important issue. We should also think back to Dame Judith Hackitt’s report, in which she identified a legacy of building regulatory failures in this country, but also identified a fundamental problem of culture in the construction industry. That culture is about cutting costs, a race to the bottom and conflicts of interests, and that is fundamentally at the heart of many of these problems, which eventually will probably take longer to address.
When we debated the Fire Safety Bill, the Government said that it was the wrong Bill to be used for amendments to bring building safety matters to a conclusion. They said that the right Bill was the building safety Bill. I am pleased that the Minister has now said that the Bill is imminent. I hope that means it will be before the recess and is quicker than “soon” or “shortly”, which Ministers often say.
The first duty of a Government is to keep their citizens safe. The only way to keep people safe in their homes is to remove all safety defects, and I say to the Government that the only way to remove all safety defects is to adopt the comprehensive building safety fund, as recommended by the Select Committee.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).
Business without Debate
NHS Integrated Care System Boundaries
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am sorry that this debate is unlikely to be the penalty shoot-out that some people may have been looking for.
We know that the Government are about to publish a new Bill on the NHS, but it is not widely known or understood that the NHS in England is being prepared for a major reorganisation. The clinical commissioning groups established by the Lansley reforms have gradually been subsumed into groups called integrated care systems. These ICSs are not legal entities, but single executive teams that have effectively merged the CCGs. Their boundaries are established according to the local health economies. For example, the North East Essex CCG has been merged with two Suffolk CCGs to form the Suffolk and North East Essex ICS, which commissions all NHS services across the whole area. This enabled Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust and Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust to be merged. I have to say that this is highly effective. In my nearly 30 years as a Member of Parliament, I can honestly say that the NHS in our area has never been better led.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend will agree that we have had a fabulous football result this evening.
Going back to the days when my hon. Friend’s father was a Health Minister, when the noble Lord Fowler was Secretary of State and when the late Lord Moore was Secretary of State, would he agree that we have had far, far too many of these reorganisations, and that we need to halt the process in our area at the moment?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will come to that point later; I shall not want to repeat myself.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on having secured the debate on changes to the NHS integrated care system boundaries on the night that England have beaten Germany and qualified for the quarter finals of Euro 2020. Does he agree that although these plans may satisfy the political ambitions of some, they do not deliver the best outcomes for our constituents, including my Slough constituents, who are already well served by the successful Frimley ICS, which should not be broken up? If something is not broke, why needlessly try to fix it?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I was anxious to give way to the hon. Gentleman to show that there is cross-party concern about this matter; I am sure that his point will be enlarged upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
All this is being put at risk at a time when the NHS is still reeling from the impact of covid-19. The new Bill will place ICSs on a statutory footing, which is a good thing, but there is also a proposal that the ICS boundaries should be redrawn to be coterminous with upper-tier local authority social care boundaries, and that is what we are questioning.
I am most grateful for the way my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box has listened recently to MPs affected by these proposed changes and has consulted us. He therefore already understands why I and others remain so concerned, but I must put it on the record that the rest of the consultation process has been not just inadequate but in defiance of proper transparency and accountability.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My hon. Friend says that is outrageous.
A firm of organisational consultants, Tricordant, was instructed by NHS England and NHS Improvement East of England to host roundtables in recent months with all the stakeholders in and around the NHS in the east of England. For some reason, it was told to exclude the MPs. Tricordant has produced several drafts of its report, which have been shared among existing ICS leaderships, NHS providers and tier 1 local authorities, but not with MPs. A few of us were eventually briefed by NHS England at the Minister’s behest, but I am mystified as to why we were not positively engaged at the outset.
The White Paper produced in February 2020—incidentally, just as we perhaps should have been anticipating the pandemic, instead of planning an upheaval of the NHS—talks about this coterminosity of boundaries, but it also has a whole section on the primacy of place. I will explain this, but those two objectives are fundamentally incompatible. The consultation exercise then appears to have been driven by that dogmatic insistence on coterminosity, and has been further confused by a lack of clarity about the problem that actually needs to be solved.
In Essex and Suffolk, areas larger than single counties were ruled out so Ministers will be presented only with a choice between the boundaries as they are and two county ICS areas—one for Essex and one for Suffolk. Discussions concerning the future of the Suffolk and North East Essex ICS have been strongly weighted towards the county councillors and their officers. Not all relevant NHS stakeholders have been consulted, which is why NHS Providers, which represents NHS leaders across the country, has spoken out on their behalf. Individual NHS leaders are understandably reluctant to criticise proposals in public, but they are known to be against the change, including the leaderships of the acute trusts across the east of England.
I understand why the county councils want this change, and I completely respect their ambition. Essex has made clear to me its frustration at making time for meetings with three different ICSs. I can also see that the new boundaries are superficially attractive, because they align NHS commissioning with the boundaries for the health and wellbeing board and other statutory public services, such as the Essex police and the local resilience forum. Essex County Council acknowledges the extremely successful place-based working implemented by Suffolk and North East Essex ICS, which incidentally has been complimented by the Care Quality Commission, the King’s Fund and the National Audit Office.
The new legislation is intended to extend place-based working to all areas. None the less, the Tricordant report would be misleading if it did not express the clear preference of NHS leaders in Essex to retain the existing ICS boundaries, primarily in recognition of the long history of operating as a single health economy, the significant flow of patients across the county border, the strength of existing relationships in the system, and the progress that has been made locally in integrating health and care services.
There are practical difficulties with the changes for Harwich and North Essex, which are replicated in other parts of England. Enablers of effective place-based working—the leadership, the philosophy and having all the partners sitting around one table—are essential to build effectiveness. A place—I use that term advisedly—that has thrived as part of one system will not necessarily thrive as part of another. Superb progress has been made in north-east Essex in recent years and, more recently, in mid and south Essex. These systems are now working not just because commissioning reflects what is called place but because people have grown into their roles and developed relationships of trust across different organisations. All that will be discarded by the wholesale changes to NHS commissioning by imposing coterminosity.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, because Members of Parliament in Nottinghamshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Suffolk, Essex and beyond have not been adequately consulted on these proposals, we should pause any decision with a view to looking more objectively at what is on the table?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My hon. Friend anticipates what I might say later.
The foundation trust for the Ipswich and Colchester hospitals will have two different commissioners, or Suffolk will have to take over the commissioning role for Colchester Hospital, leaving north-east Essex GPs, mental health services and so on with a different commissioning authority from that of the local hospital. NHS England told the MPs:
“We still do not know how the funds will flow”.
We certainly will not have all the partners sitting around a single table. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) will be reabsorbed into Suffolk, even though it is half of the wider Great Yarmouth and Waveney place.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. The Waveney area of Suffolk has been in a health administrative area with neighbouring Great Yarmouth for a very long time, and with the rest of Norfolk for a reasonable time as well. Any change would be highly disruptive, a distraction and demotivating for hard-working staff. I have written three long letters to the Department of Health and Social Care and have had a meeting with the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), but does my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex share my concern that there is a perception among those working in health and care in the local area and East Anglia that changing the boundaries is a done deal? Can the Minister confirm in his response that that is not the case?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm the latter; I have been assured that it is not the former, which is why I thought it was worth having this debate. The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has is that the local population will continue to have acute services commissioned and provided from Norfolk. The imposition of separate Norfolk and Suffolk ICSs would compromise place-level integration for that population.
The west Essex population, which may be close to your heart, Madam Deputy Speaker, has acute services commissioned and provided predominantly from Hertfordshire, London or Cambridgeshire, and very little from the rest of Essex. That means west Essex will become part of an Essex ICS when it does not even include many of the key partners responsible for delivery of acute services to that population, and of course there is to be a new hospital, which may well be outside the Essex border. The proposed county-based arrangements would fragment NHS commissioning for places in north-east Essex, Waveney and west Essex. There might be different commissioners for acute, community and primary care. These places can only fully realise the benefits of integration if they have the flexibility to align all NHS commissioning. Other parts of the country will be similarly affected.
The idea of coterminosity for the administrative convenience of county councils is, I am afraid, a bit like the tail wagging the dog. In 2018, across the UK as a whole, we spent £149 billion on the NHS, but only £22 billion on social care. How can it make sense to align NHS commissioning with social care boundaries? That is not integration with social care; it is disintegration of NHS commissioning, and why do it now, of all times? We would be destabilising our health and care infrastructure while we are not yet out of the pandemic, let alone free of the aftermath.
The focus needs to be on the recovery of services. Elective treatment waiting lists increased to 5.12 million in April—a record high. There are other options for Essex and Suffolk, and I dare say in other parts of the country as well, such as a two-county proposal, as many Essex and Suffolk MPs set out in our letter to the Secretary of State two weeks ago.
In conclusion—I want to give time for others to contribute—the new legislation could provide the opportunity for ICSs to build on their successes, but that will be impossible with the level of disruption that a change of boundaries would bring about. Conservatives should have learned the lesson that NHS reorganisations usually fail to deliver the benefits promised. That will be especially true if reforms are rushed through again, tearing up what has been so recently established. Boundaries are the contentious part of the reforms. It would be better to allow the current ICSs to implement the new legislation and then look at whether boundary changes are necessary, rather than trying to do both at the same time.
So often I have seen it happen: structural and organisational reform is imposed from above as a substitute for a full understanding of what is really going wrong and why. It is always hard to improve leadership and to promote the right attitudes and behaviours in large and complicated organisations, particularly the NHS, but the slowest way to achieve this is to have another structural organisation. Everyone stops thinking about the job they are doing and thinks only about what new job they are applying for. After the reorganisation everyone has to re-learn how their job works and to re-establish new relationships, but nobody has challenged the attitudes and behaviours, which are still holding the organisation back. So often the problems are about poor leadership, poor employee engagement and lack of stability, which yet more structural change just makes worse. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to delay the decision concerning future ICS boundaries until after the pandemic, and to consult and explore alternative boundary proposals after the legislation has settled down.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this debate, and thank him and the Minister for their courtesy in agreeing that I could speak briefly in it.
I want to focus, first, on my local integrated care system. The majority of my constituency is covered by the Frimley ICS, as is the rest of east Berkshire. I know that the comments I am going to make are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). Frimley ICS is one of the best performing and most effective ICSs in the country—arguably, it is the best performing and most effective ICS in the country. That has been achieved by partnership working across county boundaries and across local authorities. It has been achieved by people coming together, working together in a network of partners whose aim has been to provide the best possible outcomes for our constituents. Yet now the Government want to break it up—why? It is because it is bureaucratically neater to align an ICS boundary with a local authority boundary. I understand that in this instance one local authority leader argued that his local authority should be covered by a single ICS and therefore the boundaries should be the same.
I refer the Minister to the White Paper, which says:
“Frequently, place level commissioning within an integrated care system will align geographically to a local authority boundary”.
It says “frequently”, not in every case, at every occasion or in every ICS we are looking at, so it is not necessary to align every ICS with a local authority boundary. Frimley ICS is supported by all the GPs and healthcare providers in east Berkshire, and by GPs and others in Hampshire and Surrey, which Frimley ICS also covers. Frimley ICS is supported by all the east Berkshire local authorities, all the east Berkshire MPs, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex pointed out, were not consulted as part of these proposals going forward. Our message collectively to the Government is a very simple one: Frimley ICS is working well, it provides excellent services to our constituents, do not break it up. Far from breaking it up, Frimley ICS should be a template for ICSs across the rest of the country. The message can be put more simply: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That is particularly important at this point in time. The NHS has been under intense pressure during the pandemic, but as we come out of the pandemic it is also under increased pressure with the backlogs in surgery and in the provision of other services, and with the increasing pressures there will be on mental health services. Are we to say at this time to people working in the NHS, “What we want you to do is to go away and break up this thing that you’ve brought together and worked very hard to ensure is working so well, and create entirely new ones.”? In the case of Frimley, three ICSs would probably be created as a result. That can only lead to a disruption in services. Who suffers from a disruption in services? The people who suffer will be our constituents.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and in interventions, Frimley is not the only ICS that is under threat where Members of Parliament are concerned about the impact on their constituents. That brings me to the concept that underpins the White Paper—primacy of place. “Place” is not defined simply by a local authority boundary. A local authority boundary defines the area of the local authority, but primacy of place has a deeper meaning. It involves people’s behaviour and natural networks. In East Berkshire, our acute hospital is Wexham Park in Slough and is part of the NHS Frimley Health Foundation Trust. The natural geographical area for East Berkshire to be part of is the Frimley health trust area. That makes common sense to people—those working in the NHS and our constituents.
So much hard work has gone into ensuring that we have an ICS in our area that delivers for our constituents. I hear the same from other hon. Members in the debate this evening. I therefore ask the Minister to do what reflects the natural networks that define primacy of place and not to destroy the good will that has gone into making those partnerships work. Do not break up Frimley ICS. Just for once, let common sense prevail.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this timely debate about potential changes to ICS boundaries—and indeed on elevating me to the Privy Council, for which I am grateful. He and I have known each other for a long time and I always listen carefully to what he says. When there was the prospect of extra time, our friendship might have been in doubt had I been in here and unable to see the final result, but we got the result we all wanted just in time, so it is a pleasure to be here today.
The subject is important, not only for my hon. Friend, who works tirelessly for his constituents, but for all hon. Members who have spoken. The provision of healthcare goes to the heart of what many of our constituents care passionately about.
In his remarks, my hon. Friend expressed his concerns about the future of Suffolk and North East Essex ICS as one of the areas included in the NHS England ICS boundary review. I am grateful that he has called the debate, not only to allow fellow parliamentarians to express their views before any decision might be made on the Floor of the House, but to let me listen once again to them. I am equally grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). She and I have known each other a very long time and she knows that I have huge respect for her opinions. When she speaks, I always listen carefully.
As has been said, in the recent White Paper, we set out proposals to place integrated care systems in statute. We are working with NHS England and the Local Government Association to deliver and develop those proposals. At the outset, it is important that I highlight a key point. Members alluded in their remarks to the feeling that something here is predetermined. If there is such a feeling, that is a challenge for us to overcome because I want to reassure hon. Members that nothing is predetermined in any of the specific situations that they have outlined.
As has been set out, ICSs aim to strengthen partnerships and joined-up working between the NHS and local authorities. Local authorities therefore have a key role in ICSs. We know that coterminous boundaries can support more joined-up working between the NHS and local government, but I take on board entirely from my time as a local councillor—indeed, as a cabinet member for health and adult social care—the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made that sometimes natural geographies of place can mean a lot more to our constituents than administrative boundaries to which we as politicians might pay a lot of attention.
For the reasons I have given, earlier this year the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), asked NHS England to conduct a boundary review to understand what the options—I emphasise options—were to achieve alignment in the small number of areas where coterminosity was not already in place. He set out to do that in two stages: NHS England and its regional teams have led on the review at a local level, engaging with local NHS and local authority stakeholders to determine options for alignment, local views and concerns, and to put forward a fair reflection of what they had heard, while in parallel I, as a Minister of the Crown, have held multiple meetings with parliamentary colleagues. I think I have met well over a dozen colleagues in person or virtually—in this day and age—and held almost 10 different meetings.
I thank NHS England for all its engagement and work on the review. As I say, over the past six months its regional teams have worked closely with local NHS and local government stakeholders to consider, with an open mind, the options available for the areas identified in the review.
As right hon. and hon. Members have made clear, it is important to recognise where things are working well irrespective of coterminosity and serving Members’ constituents well. As I say, the review is without prejudgment and I would not wish to pre-empt what may be either recommended or even just set out as options. In that context, keeping the current arrangements would of course be an option to consider. I reassure Members that the Secretary of State and I do have at the forefront of our minds the need primarily to ensure the best health outcomes for local people when any decision is taken. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex will recognise the sincerity with which I say that.
Before I conclude, let me turn to a couple of specific points that my hon. Friend mentioned. I wish to clarify that were any changes made to ICS boundaries as a result of the review, they would not impact on the patient’s right to choose or use services outside of their ICS or current patient pathway flows.
On funding, I wish to try to reassure my hon. Friend a little more than perhaps he was reassured in the meeting to which he alluded. Once ICSs are placed on a statutory footing, the allocation of resources to each integrated care board will be determined by NHS England based on the long-standing principles of ensuring equal opportunity of access for equal need and reflecting the considerations that currently inform how moneys flow to areas when following the patient.
Edward Argar
Briefly, because I want to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks before the time runs out.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
What my hon. Friend has said does not address how Suffolk would be funded to commission services for Essex patients at an Essex hospital, and it does not address what will happen to the distribution of deficits, which is uneven across the existing ICSs.
Edward Argar
I would try to address that point briefly, but I think my hon. Friend would rather have the reassurance that I can give him. Perhaps I can pick up that point separately with him, because I do not want to run out of time.
Finally, and most importantly, I reassure my hon. Friend and other Members that no decisions have yet been made regarding the outcome of the ICS boundary review. As he would expect, the newly appointed Secretary of State will want to consider carefully the background to this issue, the options before him and, indeed, the views of right hon. and hon. Members before any decision is made. I have discussed this matter with the new Secretary of State and wish to extend his clear commitment to meet my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and other Members before he makes any decision and decides how to proceed in this matter.
My hon. Friend knows me well, and my preference is generally for evolution, not revolution. I hope that, him knowing me well and in the light of what I have said today, he will recognise the sincerity of what I say. I also hope it is helpful that I have put on record, once again, that no decisions have been made and that Members will be consulted and have the opportunity to speak to the Secretary of State. I hope that commitment reassures my hon. Friend, at least in the short term, that nothing will happen without him and other Members having their say clearly on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I normally thank the Minister politely at this point in the day, but I really do thank the Minister for what he has just said on this particular occasion.
Jim Shannon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, you announced the excellent, historic victory of England over Germany. How can I record my congratulations to the English team on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland, not just in my constituency of Strangford but across from Newry to Londonderry and from Portrush to Enniskillen, where the Union flags are flying? I have one flying at the end of my farm lane. It could be that those flags are flying in celebration of the forthcoming 12 July celebrations, but I believe that they are flying to support England, so how can we send our support from Northern Ireland and wish England well for the quarter finals and for this competition? Our team, England, are playing in the quarter finals, and that has got to be good news.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman has just done what he was endeavouring to do. I fully understand his position. As one who supports Scotland whenever I can, I am absolutely delighted to be totally, enthusiastically in support of England going forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Criminal Justice (Electronic Commerce) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, unless of course you are speaking. Hansard colleagues will be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to them by email.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice (Electronic Commerce) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.—(Alex Chalk.)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Let me just say that it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Miller. This is the first time since Thursday that I have been in this particular Committee Room; we were dealing then with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Then, I was working with two Ministers, and today I am pleased to welcome this Minister, who is almost ready to go, so I will sit down.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which I think added significantly to the proceedings. I thank him very much indeed.
The draft regulations do not create new policy or change the nature of the related offences. Instead, they are a technical measure to fix deficiencies in retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. This statutory instrument addresses reciprocal jurisdictional rules linked to the internal market contained in article 3 of the e-commerce directive. Although the directive was largely retained in UK law, the rules—more commonly referred to as the country of origin principle—rely on reciprocal application and therefore no longer operate as intended. The removal of the provisions from Ministry of Justice legislation is therefore the object of the proposed instrument.
Similar statutory instruments have already been brought forward to remove the country of origin principle from other legislation and, if time had allowed, the Government would have brought forward the regulations before the end of the transition period. However, as we are not aware that the rules in question have ever been relevant to a prosecution for the offences to which the draft instrument relates, we prioritised other more urgent legislation to be laid before the end of last year. Now that such other more important legislation is in force, it is necessary that we address any remaining deficiencies in retained EU law.
Turning now to the detail, the rules apply to organisations operating online that meet the definition of an information society service or ISS, which can be summarised as a service that is normally provided for payment at a distance by electronic means and at the request of the recipient of the service. That covers, among other things, online retailers, video-sharing sites, search tools, social media platforms and internet service providers.
The country of origin principle aims to make it easier for organisations to operate online across borders by making them subject only to the law of the country in which they were established when operating across the European economic area. For relevant offences, therefore, ISSs would need to comply only with one set of laws, rather than deal separately with each state in which they operate.
For example, a British bookshop selling online in various EEA states may have unknowingly sold a book that was banned in one of those countries. If the rules were applied to the offence of selling the prohibited book, the shop would be liable only under UK law, not under the local laws banning the book, except in exceptional circumstances. Although entirely hypothetical, I hope that example serves to highlight how the system was intended to make online operations across many jurisdictions and across the single market simpler for a business.
The system, however, worked between jurisdictions, so ISSs established in the EEA, but operating in the UK, were not fully liable under UK law. As I said, those provisions, which limited the liability of EEA-based ISSs operating in this country under UK law, no longer function as intended. This is because the EU no longer has reciprocal rules of this nature in place with regard to the United Kingdom, and could even put British businesses at a disadvantage, as I will set out further in a moment.
Implementation of the country of origin principle rules for the offences for which the MOJ is responsible has two strands. First, it made ISSs based in any EEA state subject to the law of that state for their conduct across the EEA. Secondly, it created a procedural bar restricting prosecutions of ISSs based in the EEA for their conduct in another country, on the basis that they would have been prosecuted by the state in which they are established.
The instrument removes both aspects of this implementation in the UK, removing an inconsistency where UK ISSs operating in the EEA were liable under UK law in a way that is not the case when operating in other foreign countries. It also means there will no longer be a procedural bar restricting prosecutions of EEA-based ISSs operating in the UK, meaning proceedings against them would operate in the same way as for domestic or other foreign ISSs. To put all that in plain English, what it means is that at the moment we have a lopsided arrangement whereby a UK-based ISS is liable for action in EEA countries, but the EEA ISS is effectively shielded from prosecution in the UK—and that is a lopsided arrangement that we need to put right.
This instrument was first considered by the European Statutory Instruments Committee back in March, and the Government accept the Committee’s recommendation to put it under the affirmative procedure, ensuring that it receives the scrutiny of Parliament. However, I would like to take the opportunity to reassure the Committee and address its concerns about the effect of this instrument. These rules—the country of origin principle—were never intended to contribute to the wider regulation of publication of illicit materials internationally. They apply only to organisations meeting the definition of information society service, to just a small range of offences and to activity in the EEA. They were part of heart of the wider e-commerce directive that aimed to remove obstacles to organisations offering cross-border online services.
Although there are some situations in which it is advantageous to be able to prosecute UK offenders for their conduct abroad or online, the Government’s view is that generally criminal offending is best dealt with by the criminal justice system of the state in which the offence took place. If UK-established ISSs need to be held accountable for any conduct abroad, that should be done in a way which produces the same effect in every country, not limited to the EEA. In other words, treat all countries the same.
Finally, the Government believe that these regulations are necessary irrespective of whether parallel offences exist. Where parallel offences do exist, failing to make the amendments means UK ISSs could be dually liable; in other words, facing prosecutions in the EEA state in which any offending took place as well as in the UK. As I indicated before, that is a lopsided arrangement. It would be unfair, and would place an unreasonable burden on British companies. It could also potentially put them at a competitive disadvantage when operating abroad. Where parallel offences do not exist, failing to make these amendments could result in proceedings being brought against conduct that was legal in one state, but not in the other. Again, that could put British companies operating abroad at a competitive disadvantage.
Overall, removal of the country of origin principle will mean that UK ISSs operating in the EEA are treated in the same way under our law as when operating in other foreign countries. In light of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the end of the reciprocal arrangements, it is necessary in the interests of fairness and clarity that these laws are revoked, and I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Alex Cunningham
I am sorry to disappoint you, Mrs Miller, by not allowing you to oversee your first Division in Committee. I thank the Minister for outlining the proposal so comprehensively.
As he explained, the e-commerce directive no longer applies in the UK following the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. As a result the country of origin principle whereby an EEA-established ISS is liable for relevant offences only to the laws of the state in which it is established, rather than being subject to the individual laws of each state in which it operates, no longer functions as it used to.
There are also a couple of adverse possible consequences of not removing provision of the country of origin principle, which the Minister outlined. There would be a dual legislative burden for UK-established ISSs while operating in the EEA, and it would leave a gap with liability for EEA-established ISSs when operating in the UK. Of course, I recognise the volume of legislative change that was needed to extricate the UK from the EU, and that within the bulk of work, some parts would need to be prioritised over others. However, it would have been far preferable for the Government to finalise the necessary changes before the transition period ended. That would have been entirely possible had it not been for the Government’s insistence on seeking arbitrary deadlines throughout the Brexit process that they consistently failed to meet.
I would also welcome some reassurance from the Minister on a point raised by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which said:
“The Committee is concerned that the effect of this instrument could be to dilute regulation of the international effect of publication of certain kinds of material (particularly online material with global reach) as it is not clear whether equivalent offences exist across the EEA.”
I am glad the Government have responded positively to the Committee’s recommendation of using the affirmative resolution procedure, but they have chosen not to carry out the review of equivalent provision across the EEA, as requested by the Committee.
I can understand that a full and comprehensive review would have taken a good amount of time and resources and I recognise the Government’s point that the impact of the changes will be minimal, because, as far as they are aware, there have been no prosecutions of information society services for these offences, or even any use of the country of origin principle jurisdictional rules that the instrument will remove. Yet, I am still surprised to see a Government who have had much publicity on how seriously they take the dangers of online harms shrug off the Committee’s response so quickly.
The Minister was in the Chamber earlier today to hear one of his own Members raise this very matter during Justice questions. It would therefore be useful to hear from the Minister whether any other sort of less comprehensive and therefore less resource-intensive research was considered by his Department before it chose the option of doing nothing at all.
That said, as I explained earlier, the Opposition understand the aim of this change and are sympathetic to it. We recognise that some Brexit-related deficiencies still need to be addressed and so we will not oppose this instrument today.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points and his support for the provisions. As he indicates, the SI is necessary to address a lopsided arrangement and I am delighted to have the support of the Opposition in that regard.
On the issue of timing, I have been very clear that, if time had allowed, the Government would have brought forward the regulations before the end of the transition period, but, as I have indicated already, we are not aware that the rules in question have ever been relevant to a prosecution. In other words, there is no sense in which this has impeded justice in any way. It was important to prioritise the most urgent legislation, but now that the other more important legislation has been passed, we recognise it is right that we attend to this and do so in short order. That is precisely what we have done.
As I indicated earlier, the instrument is necessary to remove rules based on reciprocity that no longer exist. It is a function of our departure from the European Union and it is important that our statute book should function correctly. On that basis, I commend the draft instrument to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I saw some coverage of the flexible season tickets, and it is true to say that ticketing is complex across the network, but, compared with somebody who would otherwise buy a regular ticket, somebody travelling two or three days a week will always be at least 20% better off with a flexible season ticket.
[Official Report, 24 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 1007.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe).
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I saw some coverage of the flexible season tickets, and it is true to say that ticketing is complex across the network, but, compared with a monthly season ticket, a flexible season ticket will always be at least 20% cheaper.
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 29th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 View all Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 June 2021 - (29 Jun 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Hon. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance, in line with the House of Commons Commission decision. Face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. I remind Members—sometimes people forget—that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 29 June Until no later than 10.30 am The Committee on the Administration of Justice; Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool Tuesday 29 June Until no later than 11.25 am Lilah Howson-Smith Tuesday 29 June Until no later than 2.30 pm Sir Jonathan Stephens Tuesday 29 June Until no later than 3.15 pm Emma Little-Pengelly Tuesday 29 June Until no later than 4.00 pm Mark Durkan Tuesday 29 June Until no later than 4.45 pm Alex Maskey, Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly; Lesley Hogg, Clerk of the Northern Ireland Assembly; Dr Gareth McGrath, Director of Parliamentary Services, Northern Ireland Assembly
Today we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can deal with those matters formally, without debate.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 29 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 June;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 6 July;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 8 July;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 8 July.—(Mr Robin Walker.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr Robin Walker.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Mr Robin Walker.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from the witnesses, do any Members wish to declare any interests in connection with the Bill? No. We will now hear oral evidence from Daniel Holder of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and from Professor Jonathan Tonge of the University of Liverpool. Before calling the first Member to ask questions, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.30 am. May I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves, starting with Daniel Holder?
Daniel Holder: Good morning. I am Daniel Holder, the Deputy Director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, a Belfast-based human rights organisation.
Professor Tonge: Good morning, and thank you to the Committee for the invitation to be here. I am Professor Jon Tonge, Professor of British and Irish Politics at the University of Liverpool and author of various books on politics in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
Q
“the current bill will provide a level of legislative reform intended to return the Petition of Concern to its intended GFA purpose.”
Could you tell the Committee about the limitations with the current mechanism and how provisions within this Bill will return the petition of concern to its intended purpose, in your view?
Daniel Holder: If we look back at the intended purpose of the petition of concern, it was very much linked to a level of scrutiny of what would be objective rights and quality standards. Every time a petition of concern is tabled, unless there is a cross-community vote to the contrary, it was to be referred to a special committee, the Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements. This serves a similar function to the Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster in actually scrutinising provisions of a contested piece of legislation that has been referred to a petition of concern against standards that include the ECHR, but also the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. There is obviously a significant gap there, as the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights has not been put into place.
One of the problems, however, is that a committee has never been established as a result of a petition of concern. Instead, what has essentially happened is that the original intention of the petition of concern has been turned on its head somewhat. At times, it has actually been used not just for party-political purposes but to block equality of rights initiatives rather than as an equality of rights-based tool. Therefore, we do welcome the reform that is within both the New Decade, New Approach agreement and the Bill.
However, my recommendations to the Committee have identified one weakness, which is that essentially what is in the Bill will replicate what is in the current primary legislation regarding the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements. Unfortunately, to date that has not proved sufficient to ensure that standing orders are drafted in a way that ensures that the ad hoc committee is convened every time a petition of concern is tabled, as the Belfast agreement originally intended. That is one area I wanted to draw to the attention of the Committee, so that it can deal with that codification in the primary legislation to ensure that the commitment in the NDNA agreement to return to the original purpose of the Good Friday agreement is met.
Mr Walker
Q
Daniel Holder: Yes, we have given evidence twice to that committee—once in the capacity of the CAJ and secondly as co-conveners of the Equality Coalition, which is a network of equality and rights non-Governmental organisations that we co-run with UNISON. It has been extremely important that that committee is established, and it is progressing its work. We keep coming back to our evidence that really the Bill of Rights was supposed to be a safeguard to prevent the type of abuse of power, rights deficits and discriminatory decision making that characterised not only the old Stormont Parliament but patterns and practices that re-emerged and were instrumental in the collapse of the institutions in 2017.
So it is in some senses to us not surprising that safeguards that were envisaged within the agreement that have not been put into place have led to a situation whereby Stormont becomes unworkable and dysfunctional. I think it is only if these safeguards over the exercise of both Executive and legislative powers are properly put into place that the institutions should begin to function as they were originally intended to.
Mr Walker
Q
Daniel Holder: It is the case that since NDNA not a single petition of concern has been tabled. Its use has become, it appears now at least, politically untenable. There is a significant risk that the problems that were associated with the petition of concern will simply be displaced and picked up by the use of other veto-type mechanisms.
So there are two vetoes: one is the St Andrews veto, which is whereby any significant or controversial decision that a Minister has taken must be referred to the full Executive unless it is already within an agreed programme for government, but, of course, despite the draft being in NDNA, we do not have an agreed programme, so at the moment it means practically any decision.
We have managed to obtain under freedom of information the amount of times this veto was used in the first 11 months of the current mandate. It was used six times. On each occasion it was invoked by DUP Ministers. On the first three occasions it was used to block provision for early medical abortion services and engagement with women’s reproductive rights. On two other occasions, which were quite public, it was used, again by DUP Ministers to block proposals from the Health Minister for public health measures to contain the pandemic. On a final occasion it was used to block an SDLP proposal seeking an Executive position on the extension of the Brexit timeframe. Those six occasions are the same number of occasions that that particular veto was exercised during the entirety of the 2007 to 2011 mandate, so there is a significant risk of displacement now.
The second veto that we have noticed has been readily used is a provision in the ministerial code whereby the First and Deputy First Ministers both must agree on agenda items for the Executive, which in practice gives either a veto. Although we do not have a full list of the occasions it has been used—that has been withheld from the freedom of information requests that we submitted—we certainly know that it has been used. For example—as referenced in a UK Government report to the Council of Europe—it was used to block a timeframe for adopting the Irish and Ulster Scots strategies, despite them being legal requirements. It was used to block the draft budget from being on the agenda for, I think, around a month and a half of the Executive. Most recently, this month, the communities Minister has stated that particular veto was used 17 times to prevent legislation to close loopholes in welfare legislation being tabled for the Executive.
The Justice Minister has also referenced occasions where perhaps one of the two vetoes, we do not know strictly which one, was used to block for a period of time the Justice Bill being introduced into the Assembly that dealt with issues around gender-based violence. Indeed, the Health Minister has publicly stated that the gender veto was used to prevent, until this week, I think, legislation being taken forward on opt-out for organ donations. So, there is a real issue whereby we could deal with the petition of concern but be left with the same problem simply being displaced on to other veto mechanisms that are well outside what was originally intended by the Belfast Agreement, which was that such mechanisms would be safeguards scrutinised against rights and equalities standards, which would bring a degree of objectivity as to their use into decision making.
Mr Walker
Q
Daniel Holder: Of course, we were not in the room during the negotiations. It is possible that those who most used those vetoes perhaps resisted reforms to them. We don’t know that. But I think another factor in this is that these types of vetoes have not had the public profile that the petition of concern has had. When a petition of concern is tabled, at least it is done in full public sight on the Floor of the Assembly, whereas with the St Andrews veto and indeed the Executive agenda veto it is done within what is usually the secret world of Cabinet confidentiality of the Executive, although I think the frustrations as to the use of these particular vetoes have spilled over in the last year, which is why a lot more information about them is in the public domain.
Also, while Ministers have the St Andrews veto, the concepts of significant and controversial are deeply subjective, of course these are ministerial decisions that are still subject to judicial review. They have to be compatible with convention rights. If the Bill of Rights was in place, they would need to be compatible with the provisions of the Bill of Rights. For example, the veto over public health measures to contain the pandemic and the context in which it was exercised, we consider would probably have been unlawful if the Bill of Rights had been in place with the right to the highest sustainable standard of health integrated within it.
There have been other occasions whereby in judicial proceedings the use of these vetoes have been drawn out, but quite often they occur in secret, so a lot less is known about them.
Mr Walker
Q
Professor Tonge: I think it is hugely important, because in successive surveys that we have done—I have directed the last four Economic and Social Research Council Northern Ireland election surveys—every time we have asked the question, “What is your preferred mode of governance?”, direct rule has never come above 15% as a preferred option. Devolved power sharing is overwhelmingly a preferred option that comes back from each of those surveys—never larger, it should be said, than in 2019, which might be seen as remarkable given the hiatus in devolution from January 2017 until just after the election in December 2019. So the public have never lost faith with devolved power sharing. They have continued to support it.
Moreover, there were substantial majorities, both in the main communities and among those who say they are neither Unionist nor nationalist, in favour of the principles of devolved power sharing, including that key decisions should be taken by concurrent majorities among Unionist and nationalist representatives. So I think you would also conclude from the 2019 election that part of the reason that DUP and Sinn Féin lost support was that they were being blamed for the absence of devolution.
When we asked, “What is the most important issue at this election?”, restoration of the Assembly was listed fourth. There were others that were higher—Brexit and the crisis in the health service pre-covid, which of course was a derivative of the absence of devolution—but restoration of the Assembly came fourth in terms of the importance of issues, and was above that among those who said they were neither Unionist nor nationalist. So clearly it is of seismic importance to keep the devolved power sharing show on the road, and that is why I endorse the vast bulk, but not everything, of what is in this Bill.
Mr Walker
Q
Professor Tonge: No, because I run the general election surveys in Northern Ireland, but the Northern Ireland life and times survey has subsequently shown continuing support for devolved power sharing. That is an annual survey run by Queen’s University and the University of Ulster, and it again showed substantial support for devolved power sharing. That survey work is limited in the sense that it does not ask what we should do about reforms of power sharing. We have just heard about petitions of concern. I would endorse a lot of what Daniel said in respect of that.
The explanatory notes to the Bill talk about the petition of concern mechanism having departed from its intended purpose,
“which was to ensure that all sections of the community are protected”.
I agree, but I think petitions of concern are the least important aspect of the vetoes that often frustrate the public in Northern Ireland. I am not saying that they are museum pieces, but I think petitions of concern were a product of their time. They were a big feature of the Assembly from 2011 to 2016, with 115 petitions of concern tabled, albeit across only 14 Bills. The petitions of concern in which the DUP was involved were solo runs in the vast bulk of cases—82 out of 86 petitions of concern that the DUP signed.
However, given the reduction in size of the Assembly from 108 to 90 Members in 2016-17, and given the fact that I do not think it is conceivable that any party will get to 30 Assembly seats in the near future, the legislation before us is to some extent closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. To be honest, much as I welcome what is in the Bill in terms of the 14-day consideration before a petition of concern is tabled and the fact that there has to be two or more parties, petitions of concern are less of an issue than the forms of veto that frustrate the public, as Daniel emphasised in his evidence.
One other point I would like to make about petitions of concern is that if they are not about just a single section of the community but are about protecting all the community, is there not a case for a petition of concern to have to be signed by two parties that are not from the same section of community? Why does it not have to be signed by two parties from different sections of the community—nationalists and others, or Unionists and others, or Unionists and nationalists? That would really turn petitions of concern from communal protection into what they were intended for, which was to protect all sections of the community. That does not appear in the Bill.
Mr Walker
Q
Professor Tonge: That is true, but there is nothing to prohibit, for example, the DUP and UUP, or on the other side Sinn Féin and the SDLP, combining to table a petition of concern, which keeps that sense of communal politics. You might think that is perfectly legitimate—that, frankly, you have to have communal protection—but the Good Friday agreement and the explanatory notes to the Bill state that petitions of concern are
“to ensure that all sections of the community are protected”.
You would still be permitting communal protection, and perhaps specifically communal protection, by allowing two parties from the same side—I use those terms advisedly, obviously—to table a petition of concern.
Mr Walker
Sure, but I would take it as all sections of the community including those communities, but not exclusive to those communities, therefore allowing any two parties to come together, or indeed Members from some parties and none. That addresses that point. I see where you are coming from. I think you have already answered my supplementary questions in the extra information you provided on petitions of concern, so I am happy to hand over to the Opposition.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. Before I move on to the official Opposition, I remind members of the Committee of the point I made before we started—that tea and coffee cannot be consumed during Committee hearings.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Q
Daniel Holder: Thank you very much. We have engaged both as CAJ and as part of the Equality Coalition, which represents a broad section of groups from across the sector. In 2013 we published a report called “Mapping the Rollback?” about the unimplemented commitments of the peace agreement, 15 years on from the Belfast agreement. It examined and produced a matrix of what had not been implemented and the problems that had caused in terms of a return to some of the patterns and practices—for example gerrymandering within housing—that had beset the previous, pre-troubles Stormont institutions.
We also produced in 2018, as a part of a coalition, what we call the “Manifesto for a Rights Based Return to Power Sharing,” which looked at the restoration of power sharing but in a manner that power sharing would not simply be restored only to collapse for exactly the same reasons that led to its implosion in 2017. That was largely beyond the renewable heat incentive issue; it was issues around rights deficits, sectarianism in decision making and a lack of safeguards to qualify Executive power in the way that the agreement originally intended.
This year, 23 years on from the agreement, we did a significant stocktake on the back of the “New Decade, New Approach” report. We again mapped the level of non-implementation of commitments in a matrix and pushed on a call to end this endless cycle where we have renegotiation and fresh agreements, then bodies reneging on the commitments and the agreements, and we end up going back into an almost endless cycle of renegotiation. We looked specifically at some of the decisions that had been instrumental in bringing down power sharing and how they could have been prevented, for example if the Bill of Rights had been in place.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Daniel Holder: I think the best way of answering that is to give a couple of examples. In 2017, when the Assembly collapsed, one of the straws that broke the camel’s back was what was called the líofa decision, from the Irish word for fluency. This was a decision made by the then Minister for Communities, who is currently the First Minister, to cut quite a small Irish language bursary scheme—I think it was around £50,000 —that enabled children from lower-income families to attend the summer gaeltacht schemes. That caused a huge outcry; the decision was widely seen as sectarian and it was one of the issues referenced in the Deputy First Minister’s resignation letter.
All we have to do is look back. In the same way that Ministers are very unlikely to breach the European convention on human rights because they know that would be unlawful, had the Bill of Rights been in place that decision would have been easily challengeable as unlawful. I am thinking about a Bill of Rights as in the advice of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that was delivered in 2008. A Bill of Rights that reflected that advice would have had a provision that outlawed discrimination, for example, on the basis of language. Given the background, such a Bill of Rights would have prevented such a decision from happening.
That was not the only Irish language decision that destabilised power sharing. There was a decision, again primarily by a number of Democratic Unionist party departments—the biggest impact was certainly from the Department of Education—to tear up a long-standing trilingualism policy that was in keeping with the United Kingdom’s human rights commitments under the European charter for regional or minority languages. That is the Council of Europe treaty that was signed as a result of the Belfast agreement, with specific provisions for the Irish language and the Ulster variant of Scots. The Bill of Rights would have made that enforceable in Northern Ireland, so decisions by DUP Ministers in, say, the Department of Education or the Department of Agriculture, to scrap those policies and introduce English-only policies would not have been compatible with the UK’s international human rights commitments and would have been directly enforceable through a Bill of Rights, so that would not have happened.
Equally, many discussions have sapped energy out of the Executive discussion, because we have an endless cycle of very basic things that are present elsewhere in the UK being blocked. An example would be single equality legislation. There are big gaps in the equality law framework in legislation to prevent age discrimination against children, for instance, or provisions around harassment in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation. These types of things have been endlessly argued about and endlessly vetoed, yet they would have had to already be in place by virtue of the Bill of Rights. It would have taken contentious issues off the table and enshrined them in what would essentially be equivalent in other countries to a constitutional framework, or the equivalent to what the Human Rights Act provides for convention rights. We think that would have provided a much more solid basis for power sharing, where a lot of these misuses of power could not have taken place.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Daniel Holder: Yes, we need mechanisms that ensure implementation, whether they are legal mechanisms, dispute-resolution mechanisms and so on. As the two exercises that we conducted show, both in 2013 and more recently, we end up in the endless cycle where agreements are made, significant provisions are reneged on and not implemented, and we have to return to another negotiation, usually to water down what was originally agreed in a previous negotiation. It is incredibly frustrating and makes the institutions unworkable and dysfunctional.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Professor Tonge: Yes, I think that is a serious concern. New Decade, New Approach refers to “caretaker Ministers” but that term does not appear in the explanatory notes to the Bill. During the debate on Second Reading, the only definition of powers afforded to caretaker Ministers were those
“set out in the ministerial code and in accordance with the requirement for an Executive Committee to consider any decisions that are significant, controversial and cross-cutting.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 821.]
That is an Executive Committee, please note. That definition begs far more questions than it answers. First, what ministerial decision is insignificant? That is an obvious question to ask. Secondly, the formation of the Executive Committee is a moot point. It is far from clear in the Bill whether there would simply be a collection of individual Ministers, remnants from the previous Assembly and Executive, left in place for up to 24 weeks after the election, but d’Hondt is not run to re-establish those Ministers post-election. Obviously, the composition of the Executive Committee may change substantially if there is a change in party fortunes at that election.
Let us assume that the pre-election Ministers are left in place for up to 24 weeks. First, there is a democratic element: is that correct, given that the electorate might have spoken in a different way? More substantively, in terms of powers, is the question you asked: which ministerial decisions will they be able to take that are significant, controversial or cross-cutting? Will they be able to take decisions with financial implications in a caretaker capacity? I would seek clarification of those points from the Minister, because I am far from clear. The right hon. Member for East Antrim used the phrase “lame duck Ministers” during that 24-week period. It would be interesting to see what specific powers they will be able to use during that period of up to 24 weeks.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
“any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.”
The rules governing purdah in the UK Government are outlined in the Cabinet manual, and civil servants inform their permanent secretaries if any requests by Ministers raise issues. Do you think that the Bill will provide civil servants with enough legal scope to push back on Ministers making inappropriate requests during a caretaker Administration?
Professor Tonge: Yes, I am comfortable about the Bill’s provisions in that respect. Actually, I think the most comprehensive part of the Bill is the updating of the ministerial code. It makes clear the need for the separation of party political from ministerial matters. In that respect, I am quite sanguine about the Bill doing exactly what you suggest.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Professor Tonge: Therein lies a much bigger area: how the code of conduct will actually be enforced, what will happen and whether we will simply see the traditional divide on party lines over its implementation.
There is one phrase in the code of conduct that slightly alarms me:
“Ministers must…operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations”.
No further definition is offered. What would constitute promoting bad or offensive community relations, as distinct from good community relations? To give one example, would a Minister who criticised Irish language provision while still implementing it be in breach of the code of conduct? Similarly, if a nationalist Minister praised aspects of a paramilitary campaign of the past, would that be seen as non-conducive to good community relations, and would sanctions against that Minister be available? It is far from clear, partly because it is ultimately a matter for the Assembly and the Executive to decide how to impose sanctions.
I think that what is contained in the Bill is very laudable in updating the ministerial code, but the devil will be in the detail of implementation. Whether implementation is actually possible in terms of sanction against a Minister who is seen to be in breach of the ministerial code—I think that that is where the difficulty will lie. I am not convinced that Westminster can necessarily resolve that difficulty.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
“the Secretary of State may”—
only “may”, rather than “must”—
“issue a certificate”
outlining the date for a poll, even if the conditions for cross-community representation are not met. Do you think that that is a mistake? Is there a risk of undermining the principles of the Good Friday agreement if an Executive drawn from one community is able to limp on at the behest of the Secretary of State?
Professor Tonge: I think that there has been a lot of limping on in the Assembly and Executive over the years, and there has been an arbitrariness about when a poll should be called. We have had, in effect, two pieces of emergency legislation by previous Secretaries of State to prevent an election from being called and to update the rules because an election was due.
In a broader sense, I welcome the fact that the current time periods of either seven days or 14 days are being extended to either 24 weeks or 48 weeks, to keep the show on the road. You simply cannot afford another collapse. I understand the principles behind the Bill, so I do not think that we need to be too formulaic about giving the Secretary of State some discretion in that respect. The main purpose of the Bill is clear here: to allow greater cooling-off periods before another election is called. If that means giving the Secretary of State greater flexibility, so be it.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Professor Tonge: I think it is outdated. It may soon look very outdated, depending on the performance of Alliance in the Assembly election that has to take place by 5 May next year.
The communal designations more broadly are period pieces; they were of their time, and they were necessary in their time. Is the Assembly ready for the complete abolition of communal designations? It would be a bold step, but it would probably be laudable. You could still build in protections. The obvious way forward, if you get rid of communal designations, is to have qualified majority voting, where, for example, any controversial measure would have to be passed by 70% of the Assembly as an entirety. There is something horribly reductionist in requiring parties in the “centre ground” to designate as “Other”; I know that Alliance refuses to use the term “Other”, as reductionist, and use that term as a “community first” label.
Have the communal designations served their purpose? Yes, over time, but I think there is now a clear case for a fundamental review of Assembly rules to see whether it is still necessary to have those Unionist and nationalist designations. Particularly if you got to the position after the next Assembly election in which you had a First Minister from the largest party and the largest designation who may be nationalist, but for example, Alliance was to be the second largest party, but because it was not from the next largest designation it was not able to provide a Deputy First Minister, the case—which is already mounting—for a reappraisal of the rules would become quite overwhelming.
You can make the case against that by saying, “If you look at the recent Assembly elections, you’ve got 85% of voters still voting for Unionist or nationalist parties”, or certainly in excess of 80%. However, if you look at the electorate as a whole, when we have done the last four Northern Ireland election surveys, the largest single category of elector now—as distinct from voter—is a person saying they are neither Unionist nor nationalist. The life and times survey from two different universities shows exactly the same. That is the largest single category: bigger than the Unionist category, bigger than the nationalist category. The Assembly rules as they are are in denial of that.
You might say, “Well, the percentage of actual voters who are still Unionist or nationalist is still high”, but in terms of the electorate as a whole, there is a case for reform of the rules, and the fact that you have those communal designations is a deterrent to people voting in Northern Ireland who say they are neither Unionist nor nationalist. When we ask non-voters the question, “Why didn’t you vote in the last election?”, those communal rules come across loud and clear as one of the most significant deterrents to people participating in the electoral system, so in terms of the health of the body politic, I think there is a growing case for getting rid of the communal designations. Whether Unionist or nationalist politicians would concur with that is a very moot point.
Alex Davies-Jones
Thank you, witnesses; thank you, Chair. No more questions from me.
The Chair
Thank you. James Sunderland, and could you state which of the witnesses your question is to, or whether it is to both of them?
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Q
Professor Tonge: I am happy to go first. It clearly was used as a veto between 2011 and 2016. It was often used as a solo run: the DUP, because of its very considerable Assembly strength during that period, was in a position to veto not particularly the social and moral issues with which the veto is often associated—although they did use the veto for that—but welfare reform legislation. That was the most common form of veto; that was where the veto card was played the most. Some 115 petitions of concern were tabled, 86 from Unionist parties and another 29 from Sinn Féin and the SDLP, across just 14 Bills. When you think that during that period, something like 70 Bills were passed by the Assembly between 2011 and 2016, it was very much only a minority of Bills for which the veto card, if you want to call the petition of concern that, was used. Petitions of concern were tabled for only a relatively small percentage of Bills, but it was used quite extensively during that period.
Of course, as soon as the Assembly size was reduced from 108 to 90 and no party could get up to 30 seats, the petition of concern faded considerably in significance. The six-monthly reports that now have to be produced on petitions of concern show clearly that it is simply not a veto that can realistically be used these days by any single party anywhere.
Daniel Holder: I suppose all I can add to that is just to concur that, yes, the petition of concern was essentially used as a political veto, rather than—as alluded to earlier—a mechanism whereby a particular measure or piece of legislation would be scrutinised against rights and the European convention on human rights.
The only other point to add is that, of course, the actual use of the petition of concern and, indeed, the other vetoes, while they have not been used in large numbers, really is the tip of the iceberg as to the broader impact they actually have, particularly not just with the petition of concern but with the St Andrews and agenda vetoes. You will have a situation where Ministers simply will not progress particular initiatives or measures because they know that they are likely to be vetoed. What is in plain sight is perhaps the tip of the iceberg of a much broader problem in the way that what were supposed to be safeguards have been flipped on their head and are not used for their original, intended purpose.
James Sunderland
Q
Professor Tonge: Clearly, the Bill is laudable in how it deals will petitions of concern. It makes it much more difficult for parties, in one sense, to use petitions of concern, notwithstanding the fact that none of them has the Assembly strength to go solo in respect of petitions of concern. The message that comes from the Bill is quite clear: petitions of concern should be used only as a last resort and used to the benefit and for the protection of the entire community, not just communal interests. I return to the point that I made earlier: I would like to see petitions of concern confined to cross-community tabling, or at least having to go beyond your community, so it would have to be a POC from nationalists and others, or from Unionists and others, for example.
There is stuff in the Bill that is eminently sensible: the 14-day consideration stage before its deployment; the fact that the Speaker, or three Deputy Speakers, cannot be involved in tabling a petition of concern; the fact that a Minister would be in breach of the code of conduct if he or she supported a petition of concern, given that it went against Executive policy, so it encourages a sense of collective Executive responsibility—they cannot then go and grandstand on behalf of their party, which is a good thing—and the fact that a POC cannot be used at the second stage of a Bill, which is simply a discussion of general principles in the Assembly. All those things contained in the Bill are very laudable
Daniel Holder: From our perspective, the Bill represents significant progress in relation to the petition of concern. I reiterate the gap that I mentioned earlier, however: it does not appear to deal with codifying in primary legislation and ensuring that the Standing Orders will follow the procedure that was intended under the agreement for the special procedure committee being set up. Also, there is the broader risk that the problems associated with the petition of concern will simply be displaced elsewhere into, for example, the St Andrews veto.
Just to pick up on the caretaker Administration when the First Ministers are not in place, again, there is a significant risk of a legal lacuna and that Ministers will not be able to take any decisions that are significant, which, as Professor Tonge has said, could be practically anything, or indeed any decisions that are controversial, which is anything that anyone wants to make politically contentious. That could be particularly problematic where Ministers have to take steps to deal with legal obligations or human rights obligations, for example, but will be unable to do so, as those decisions would have to be deferred to the full Executive committee that essentially does not exist.
A further problem we have identified is that there are certain duties that were core elements of the peace agreement, such as the adoption, further to the legislation passed at St Andrews, of an anti-poverty strategy on the basis of objective need to deal with the patterns of deprivation that, in the past and present, have quite often fuelled conflict. That particular decision, and the strategies legislated for at the time of St Andrews to progress both the Irish language and Ulster Scots, are legal obligations on the full Northern Ireland Executive. Again, those obligations would go into limbo in the caretaker period where you have no Executive able to adopt them.
We welcome the provisions in the Bill that would strengthen the ministerial code. We would concur with Professor Tonge’s concerns, however, about the ambiguity in the term, “good community relations”, which is open to interpretation. In particular, it has been used in the past as a veto on, for example, new housing developments, on the grounds that the other community to that which has hitherto been dominant in that area may live in the house, and that is therefore not conducive to good community relations, which offends against the right to housing that should have been in place under the various peace agreements.
On the ministerial code and enforcement, it is worth noting that the private Member’s Bill of Jim Allister MLA, led to provisions whereby the Assembly standards commissioner now can deal with breaches of the ministerial code. I should declare an interest, in the sense that my organisation, along with another one, has already issued one such complaint that is under investigation, so it would not be appropriate to go into the details.
We have identified a potential ambiguity that may be of relevance to the Committee to the extent that the new provisions on enforceability just concern the code of conduct, not whether they also cover the pledge of office and broader provisions of the ministerial code. Our view certainly is, given the reference to the broader ministerial code in the code of conduct itself, that there should be a degree of enforceability of broader provisions. Others may take a different view, and that is possibly something worth exploring further.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Q
Daniel Holder: Certainly. We have done a number of papers on this, which we have fed into the negotiations that led to the re-establishment of it. In summary, we think that what is in the Belfast agreement as the petition of concern was set up as a safeguard to ensure that all sections of the community are protected and can participate in the institutions. That was linked expressly to conformity with equality requirements, specifically, as I have said a number of times, the ECHR and the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. The provision for cross-community voting was also linked to that.
The Good Friday agreement provides for a special procedure committee, which would be a committee with full powers. It would be established to examine and report on whether a measure or proposal was in conformity with equality requirements, including the ECHR and the Bill of Rights. That committee must be convened when a petition of concern is tabled, unless there is a cross-community vote to the contrary.
In our view, it is very clear that that was the original intention of the Belfast agreement. I do not think that the custom and practice of it not operating properly through this time is sufficient to suggest that that should be viewed differently. Essentially, the original intention of the agreement has been departed from. It is now, but was not supposed to be, essentially, a subjective political veto; it was supposed to be tied to more objective criteria.
We always go back to the fact that—plus sometimes the difference of views—you cannot just make up human rights, ECHR rights or the rights in the Bill of Rights. They would largely reflect the existing human rights commitments of the UK, albeit not in an enforceable format without the Bill of Rights. Therefore, you bring in a level of objectivity, with the same function that the Joint Committee on Human Rights would have, in that the special procedure committee may seek advice from the Human Rights and the Equality Commissions that were established under the Belfast agreement as to whether a measure or particular piece of legislation offends those standards.
Of course, there is a weakness, that a party or parties could just ignore the expert advice and the determination as to whether a particular measure breaches those equality standards and vote to the contrary anyway. However, the original intention was very much to make that linkage. It is expressly on the face of the agreement.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Daniel Holder: If you read paragraph 13 of strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement it says that, when a petition of concern is tabled,
“the Assembly shall vote to determine whether a measure may proceed without reference to this special procedure. If this fails to achieve support on a cross-community basis...the special procedure shall be followed.”
The agreement expressly says that the special procedure committee must be established each time a petition of concern is tabled, unless there is a cross-community vote to the contrary.
Gavin Robinson
Q
“The Assembly may appoint a special Committee”.
Is that correct?
Daniel Holder: I am fortunate to have the relevant paragraphs in front of me; yes, but—
Gavin Robinson
You can take my word for it, Mr Holder. I will move on.
Daniel Holder: No, I do have the relevant paragraph in front of me but, Mr Robinson, that is referring to other occasions when the Assembly may establish this particular committee. For example, the special committee on equality requirements can be established for another reason. There is one example of its ever being established, for the Welfare Reform Bill. That was on the basis of a petition of concern, from a referral from the Bill Committee dealing with welfare reform. The Assembly can establish this Committee for other reasons, and you are right to point to that being permissive. However, it is not permissive when a petition of concern is tabled; it is mandatory, unless there is a cross-community vote to the contrary.
The Chair
I have two Members indicating that they wish to ask questions, and there are nine minutes left, so I will move on.
Gavin Robinson
Do you mind, Mr Stringer, if I ask one question of Professor Tonge?
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Q
Professor Tonge: Briefly on that, the obvious solution to your last point would be to restrict the number of times any particular party can table a petition of concern. As I say, I do not think they will be key players anyway throughout the life of the next Assembly, or any Assemblies thereafter, because they have had their day. The obvious solution is simply to limit the number of times a POC can be played. There has been talk of limiting petitions of concern to certain types of legislation—I do not think that is a runner because it would very hard to define. However, why not only allow a party one or two opportunities to table a petition of concern during the lifetime of an Assembly? That would be a logical solution, so that only in extremis could any party play the veto card.
Daniel Holder: I think the risk of gaming the system is there, given what we have heard to date, and it would be helpful if that was constrained to an extent. At the same time, the time available will be helpful to allow the special procedure committee to sit and scrutinise a measure at that stage. Yes, certainly we would encourage a discussion on the broader reform of the provisions, including the designation provisions that have become a very crude instrument. Although they are termed as cross-community voting, they are of course not linked to any indicator of community background as such, but to Unionist or nationalist traditional political affiliation.
The Chair
Sorry, Mr Farry. We are really running out of time. I am going to move to Colum Eastwood, so that every Member who has indicated that they wish to ask a question will have had the opportunity to do so.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Q
We have another storm brewing around Irish language legislation, because whilst the Government here have said that they will introduce the legislation, that legislation is quite clear that some of its provisions will need to be implemented by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister jointly. Do you see this as another potential crisis point in the process for the Executive and the Assembly, given the fact that it has already been touted as a potential bargaining chip to deal with some other issues?
Professor Tonge: Yes, I do see that as a problem, because the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner and the Irish language commissioner have to be joint Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister appointments. One obvious stalling tactic would be disagreement, potentially from opponents of either, but more obviously from opponents of Irish language provision, to the appointment of an Irish language commissioner. An objection to the appointment of an Irish language commissioner could arise.
At the moment, there is not provision for the Secretary of State to intervene to make those appointments. I have already written that I can see a scenario in which legislation has to be passed again, assuming that the provisions of New Decade, New Approach on Irish language are formally accepted. I suspect that if the Secretary of State has to legislate for this come the autumn, the legislation would have to be amended to include the appointments, if necessary, of those two commissioners. Otherwise, there will be another Assembly impasse down the track.
Daniel Holder: My short answer is also yes, but it goes well beyond the issue of the appointment of the two commissioners. The Irish language commissioner, as envisaged by NDNA, draws on the Welsh model of a commissioner who produces language standards that are then, in the Welsh model, binding on public authorities. In the NDNA model, public authorities have to pay due regard to them, which is a weaker formulation. However, the language standards produced by the commissioner are subject to approval by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Therefore, you again have the ongoing risk that they will simply be vetoed and not put into place, which will bring us straight back to the problem that we are trying to get past.
Certainly one particular area of focus could be looking at alternatives, such as whether the commissioner can approve their own standards, or whether they could be referred to Foras na Gaeilge, the body set up under the North South Ministerial Council language body under the agreement, to instead approve and formally incorporate those standards. Otherwise, yes, we could end up having commissioners appointed, including the Ulster Scots commissioner, who is set up in a different format.
Unfortunately, sometimes provisions for Ulster Scots are designed more around being a counterweight to Irish rather than thinking through what is actually needed to safeguard and preserve Ulster Scots linguistically. That in itself is a problem. That particular commissioner—rightly, because it would not be the right model—will not produce language standards. So, that concern over veto would not necessarily apply to that commissioner once appointed, but certainly in terms of the Irish language commissioner there is potential for, essentially, ministerial interference in the daily work of the commissioner, unless the legislation is amended.
The Chair
Thank you. We have a matter of seconds left of the time allocated. So, may I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Committee, to thank the witnesses for the very valuable contributions that you have made?
Examination of Witness
Lilah Howson-Smith gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Could you introduce yourself, please?
Lilah Howson-Smith: Hi. Good morning. My name is Lilah Howson-Smith. I was a special adviser in the Northern Ireland Office under Julian Smith, when he was Northern Ireland Secretary.
Mr Walker
Q
Lilah Howson-Smith: Sure. I think that the most obvious impact was on public services delivery. You obviously had a situation where the civil service could authorise certain decisions, up to quite a low threshold, and authorise certain amounts of spending, but you basically had a situation where no new policy or structures could be pursued.
The way in which that impacted public services was basically most explicitly on the health service, with incredibly long waiting lists, but the impact also extended into education. We visited a number of schools, both at primary and secondary level, where there was just a sense of overall stasis. I think there was also a kind of frustration more widely about infrastructure issues, even extending to Belfast City Council, who we spoke to; they talked about issues around sewage that just had not been dealt with, because of the absence of Ministers.
So, I think it affected all aspects of life. It was very much the first thing that came up in all our meetings with civil society, business and border organisations throughout our time in Northern Ireland, before power sharing was restored.
Mr Walker
Q
Lilah Howson-Smith: Particularly with regard to the measures around elections and the sustainability measures, as they were characterised in the original agreement, I think they give the Executive and Ministers space and time to resolve various issues around power sharing, in advance of any need to bring forward an election.
As it is, at the current moment in time there is very little capacity for Ministers to work through even quite basic issues, in terms of policy programmes, in advance of an obligation falling on the Secretary of State to bring forward an election. So, I think the intention was specifically to give greater space and time for them to resolve those policy issues and personnel issues, to build some relationships in advance of an immediate decision by the Secretary of State to hold an election.
I also think that the measures around the petition of concern were specifically about building greater trust between the parties, in terms of the mechanics of policy making, as some of the other witnesses have spoken about. There was obviously a sense in which the petition of concern had been used as a veto or blocking measure by particular parties. While the new measures are maybe not as extensive as some of the parties wanted during the negotiations, the intention clearly is that the petition of concern once again becomes a measure of last resort, restored to its original purpose as it was conceived in the Good Friday agreement, rather than being a kind of blocking mechanism on moral or social issues, or even party political issues, such as welfare.
Mr Walker
Q
Lilah Howson-Smith: Of the measures introduced as part of the Bill, the petition of concern measures were the most discussed in the talks. I do not think they were necessarily controversial, but there was a disagreement or divergence of views between the parties on how far they wanted to go on that. It was not necessarily about any single party having a strong view on how they conceived the petition of concern being used in future, but there was a broader acknowledgment that the petition of concern had been used too much in the past, there was a need to reduce its use and therefore a need to signal that as part of the agreement.
Where the agreement landed and where the Bill is representative of that agreement is roughly where there was the most agreement between the parties, in that it could not be used on Second Reading votes and on standards motions, and that there is now a 14-day cooling-off period. That was all about basically making parties and individual MLAs consider whether it was an appropriate use of the petition of concern and whether it was the best way to do policy making, in terms of building credibility and trust between the parties.
Mr Walker
Q
Lilah Howson-Smith: Not at all. Definitely Julian and I worked alongside all the officials in the Northern Ireland Office—worked extremely hard to restore the institutions. I frequently reflect that, in the absence of an Executive, the covid pandemic and the public health crisis that has happened since is unthinkable. It is really difficult to think how the civil service in Northern Ireland would have been able to handle that with the limited powers it had at that time. That is not a reflection on their abilities, but the absence of ministerial decision making would have made it unthinkable. The fact that those institutions were restored in advance of the covid pandemic represents the fact that the Government took that extremely seriously, and that went right up to the Prime Minister.
Mr Walker
Q
Lilah Howson-Smith: It is exactly the point that you make in your question. We have had to rush bits of Northern Ireland-related legislation through, in part because of the absence of power sharing. You have the Executive formation legislation, which was always done on an incredibly tight timescale. I think rightly, some of the Northern Ireland parties objected to that, on the basis that perhaps there was not adequate scrutiny. More recent bits of legislation around victims’ payments and abortion, which we were involved in implementing, were also incredible difficult to implement because there was not broad consensus or buy-in from the other parties through a longer-term legislative process.
There is definitely an advantage to taking this bit of legislation through in slightly slower time, so that we can have discussions like this where we are able to discuss where things are missing or not clear, or can be clarified through implementation.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Lilah Howson-Smith: I understand that perhaps there is not total clarity about what that means. I think the point was that it was supposed to be agreed by the Executive once the legislation was taken forward by Westminster. The fact that the legislation is being taken forward by Westminster reflects the fact that amendments have to be made to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and that this part falls within a reserved area, rather than the fact that there will not be an active process, I assume, with the Executive to discuss what this means in reality. I think there was tacit or implicit agreement between all the parties that there would clearly need to be clarity around that, and that there would be checks and balances on the fact that Ministers obviously would not be able to take decisions in a caretaker capacity that went beyond the normal remit of perhaps the types of decision that might be taken during a purdah period.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Howson-Smith: The intention was never that they would be able to make—yes, it depends how you define significant decisions, but the intention was always that there would be sufficient checks either within the Executive or by the Secretary of State that would mean that there was not the kind of significant decisions that would have broader implications for the cross-community nature of those decisions. I am concerned that you have characterised it as limping on. I take your point, but the reality is that it was supposed to just provide that bit of additional flexibility to the Ministers and in forming the Executive, where those decisions have been difficult to make or have not happened because the time periods are so short and perhaps it was not in everyone’s political interest to form an Executive within that short period of time. So yes, obviously, there is a flip side to that, but clearly there is also opportunity to avoid the type of situation that we fell into in 2017, where an Executive just is not formed for a long period of time because there is an election and then there has to be a series of talks processes to get the Executive and the Assembly back up and running.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Howson-Smith: In terms of the petition of concern, I do have some worries that perhaps we did not necessarily go far enough in ensuring that, for example, petitions of concern are not tabled on Bills that are allowing the Northern Ireland Executive to take border legislation that is compliant with human rights. For example, petitions of concern were previously used—or were likely to be used—on issues around abortion and that was a concern for me, that perhaps those measures did not give adequate protection. On that specific issue, Westminster is taking forward legislation and we are now in a process of implementation. However, there were some suggestions about potentially having more oversight from human rights bodies in that petition of concern process. I do not think that that necessarily would have been a bad thing. I think that would be quite valuable, given the previous types of things the petition of concern has been used for. However, I hopefully think that the changes that are in there will make parties and MLAs think twice about using petitions of concern in that way again.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Howson-Smith: As far as I understand it, there are no statutory limitations.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for that interesting and valuable contribution.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 29th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 View all Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 June 2021 - (29 Jun 2021)
The Chair
We will now hear from Sir Jonathan Stephens, former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office. Colleagues, we have until 2.30 pm. Sir Jonathan, I described you, but briefly please say something about yourself.
Sir Jonathan Stephens: Certainly. I am Jonathan Stephens. I was permanent secretary of the Northern Ireland Office from 2014 until February 2020, having previously worked in the Northern Ireland Office over a number of years from the mid-1980s.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
Q
Sir Jonathan Stephens: Fundamentally, there were no Ministers available to give direction and take critical decisions. The Northern Ireland civil service was left in a wholly unprecedented situation, which I know from talking to many of them they found intensely challenging and was not at all what they sought. Civil servants are trained to work for and support the Government of the day and Ministers and provide their advice to Ministers, who take decisions that civil servants then implement. Our colleagues in the Northern Ireland civil service were left trying to maintain the machinery of Government and trying to provide public services in the absence of ministerial decisions, and they found that increasingly uncomfortable as time went on.
Mr Walker
Q
Sir Jonathan Stephens: I think it does a number of important things. First, it fills in what you might think of as a number of loopholes in the original design of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which simply did not contemplate the sort of situation in which we found ourselves in 2016.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, it provides time and space for the Executive or for party leaders to resolve fundamental differences, if and when they arise. As you will know, the previous scheme provided only for periods of either seven or 14 days for the formation of the Executive and the appointment of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We went through those early deadlines very quickly indeed in 2016. We were left in the unprecedented situation of having no means of restoring the Executive without fresh legislation at Westminster.
It is important to say that these changes provide a number of mechanisms that will help in the resolution of fundamental differences, if they arise again. They provide greater assurance for continuity of decision making, but, of course, nothing is perfect. I have always thought that if there is absolute determination to bring about the collapse of the institutions, or such a deep and fundamental breakdown in trust between the parties that they cannot be restored, then no amount of clever constitutional provisions will get over such a fundamental breakdown.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Q
Do you think it is fair to say that the New Decade, New Approach agreement was largely imposed by the two Governments at a very opportune moment in the political process? The three largest parties had had a difficult election. We had a nurses’ strike and then the two Governments struck, and got Stormont back up and running again. That goes to the heart of your point that if we do not have political parties willing to work the system and work together, no clever constitutional construct can stop them collapsing it. Do you think there is more that we could have done as part of those discussions? I am particularly thinking about the way in which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are appointed.
Sir Jonathan Stephens: I would not use the word “imposed” because, at the end of the day, it was the decision of all the main parties in Northern Ireland to re-form the Executive. Yes, it was on the basis of the proposals put forward in New Decade, New Approach, but each party was free to take its own decision on that. From my point of view, when the document was published there was no certainty as to how parties would react and whether it would provide a basis for forming the Executive. We very much hoped so, but there was no certainty.
It reflected extensive discussions, of which a number of people on the Committee will have close memories, over many years, but most recently over the period of months from the calling together of the most recent session of talks, following the tragic murder of Lyra McKee. Again, there was very strong input from the parties. Although the proposals were the proposals from the Governments, they reflected very considerably the input of the parties. They were our best judgment as to where agreement lay.
On the First and Deputy First Ministers, I am conscious that parties have a number of different views on that. There are a number of parties that think that the original arrangement under the Good Friday agreement for the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers on the basis of cross-community consent should not have been changed after the St Andrews agreement. Other parties who were critical of the St Andrews agreement formed and participated in devolved government on the basis of that.
The Good Friday agreement was now more than 20 years ago. It was designed with one situation and set of scenarios in mind. As ever, the world moves on and change comes. It is coming in Northern Ireland, and there will come a time when it will be right to look at some of the fundamental arrangements within that agreement and consider whether they still best serve the people of Northern Ireland and adequately reflect the current situation in Northern Ireland. However, that would be quite a major task to undertake, with possible renegotiation of key aspects of the agreement. It is not a task that, personally, I think is quite right for now.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Q
Sir Jonathan Stephens: In a sense, I agree with you, Mr Farry. I was indicating earlier that there had been significant change in Northern Ireland. At the time of the Good Friday agreement, the assumption was that there was a Unionist majority community, a substantial nationalist minority community and a relatively small but steady component who did not identify with the others. Since then, the situation has changed. It is more like two substantial minorities with a much larger, more significant and growing number of people who choose not to identify with either.
Over time, I think that will mean that a number of the arrangements need to be looked at again and examined. I am just conscious, having participated in a number of those discussions over the years, that that is not an easy task. It takes up a huge amount of political energy. Yes, there is a lot to be said for anticipating, rather than reacting to, crises, but Governments across the world, not least in Northern Ireland, have a number of crises right now to respond to. I simply suggest that right now does not seem to me to be a good time to undertake that significant and mammoth task, but I would be surprised if at some point in the next 10 years it is not on the agenda.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Q
I do not know whether you had the opportunity to hear the evidence session this morning. Some questions were raised about the lack of detail in the Bill as to what safeguards are in place if Ministers are in position and there is a difficulty in forming an Executive. You will know that the discussions during the negotiations focused on safeguards for issues that are significant, cross-cutting and controversial, which would ordinarily therefore go to the Executive, but with no Executive sitting, those decisions could not be made. It appears in one sense that there needs to be further detail in the Bill on what the pitfalls might be. One aspect that did not come out in the evidence this morning was the fact that Ministers normally operate after having gone through a process of reaching consensus on a programme for government. Any Minister without an Executive could therefore continue to bring forward decisions on that basis, and perhaps juxtapose that with an inability for Ministers to act and the difficulty that the Northern Ireland civil service found itself in during that three-year hiatus.
Sir Jonathan Stephens: The fundamental position is that the Bill essentially provides for a form of caretaker Administration in the absence of the formation of a full Executive. Without an Executive Committee or an Executive meeting—there cannot be an Executive without a First and Deputy First Minister—as you say, Mr Robinson, decisions cannot be taken on issues that are cross-cutting, significant or controversial. That in itself will be a significant constraint. During the absence of Ministers, cases were brought before the courts arguing that decisions had been reached without the required authority, and the courts policed that quite robustly. No doubt they will police these provisions equally robustly.
Although there might not be an Executive Committee meeting in place, there is likely to be agreement on a programme for government, even if it was of the previous Administration. That will provide an overview, as it were, of the direction of the Government under which a caretaker Administration would be able to continue to operate. I think there are protections in place, but I continue to come back to the point that no system is perfect, and there should be no doubt that the absence of a properly functioning Executive for the periods of time that could be possible under the Bill would itself have serious consequences, but at least we would not be in a situation where there was no direction and no decision making at all.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Q
Sir Jonathan Stephens: I think that is where the provisions in the Bill for the Secretary of State to call an election in the event that he judges that there is no longer broad cross-community support are critical. That underpins the whole basis of government in the Good Friday agreement, which is that Government should have broad cross-community support. If one ended up in a situation in which there were Ministers of only one party, that would be very unlikely indeed to command broad cross-community support, and you would expect the Secretary of State to step in. I think there are protections against that.
I have also identified the fact that if there is no Executive Committee meeting, because there is no First or Deputy First Minister, the ability of Ministers to take significant, controversial or cross-cutting decisions is heavily constrained. They cannot take such decisions, and the courts have already demonstrated their readiness to step in if they think that that boundary has been crossed. So this sets up a mechanism in which this is a caretaker Administration keeping the business of government and public services going, but unable to take it in new, strategic directions. So I think there are protections in place.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Sir Jonathan Stephens: I think they are likely to be more effective than the existing provisions, which are seven days or 14 days respectively. As I indicated, where a fundamental disagreement arose, that was almost inadequate time even to get discussions going. Once that deadline was busted, there was nothing to fall back on. Of course, you may encounter a disagreement that is so fundamental that whatever amount of time you provide for it is inadequate, but the negotiations on the Stormont House agreement and the fresh start agreement both lasted roughly 12 to 16 weeks. I think that sort of period of time provides a reasonable window in which to seek to resolve fundamental disagreements, but at the end of the day it depends upon a willingness among the parties to get together to discuss, seek to understand and resolve those differences. More time helps, but it is not the complete answer
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Sir Jonathan Stephens: The fundamental protection is the absence of an Executive if there is not a First Minister or a Deputy First Minister, meaning that significant, controversial, cross-cutting decisions cannot be taken by Ministers, as well as the readiness, as demonstrated already, of the courts to step in and rule that decisions are ultra vires—not valid—if they break that boundary.
The Chair
If there are no other questions from colleagues, let me bring the Minister in again.
Mr Walker
Q
Sir Jonathan Stephens: Without the deal in place, although of course at the time we had no awareness that covid was just around the corner, it is absolutely inconceivable that Northern Ireland civil servants without ministerial direction could have responded to the covid crisis. I think it would have driven direct rule inevitably. Much of my career in the Northern Ireland Office has been about trying to find the basis on which devolution can be restored and leaders from within Northern Ireland can take decisions for Northern Ireland. I believe that that is a far better system of government for Northern Ireland, allowing Northern Ireland’s unique interests and concerns to be reflected by its own politicians and leaders.
Of course, over many years in the Northern Ireland Office I experienced direct rule, and direct rule Ministers from Westminster made the best of trying to take decisions for Northern Ireland, but I know they felt deeply uncomfortable at times taking decisions for a part of the UK from which they were not elected and where they did not reflect the local community. I do not think that I ever saw a Minister who did not believe that local politicians should be taking decisions for local matters in Northern Ireland.
The concern always was that, once direct rule were reinstituted, if it ever were, it would be enormously difficult and time-consuming to restore agreed institutions again. That would mean that there were real questions about the nature of Northern Ireland, how its society was reflected in its Government, and I think that would also be very bad for Northern Ireland. Although we did not know it at the time, it was incredibly fortunate timing that the agreement was reached just in time before covid hit, and meant that Northern Ireland was trying to respond to that crisis but with its own leaders and politicians, conscious of its own challenges and unique characteristics.
The Chair
Sir Jonathan, were there any final remarks you wanted to make before we finish your evidence session and wish everyone well?
Sir Jonathan Stephens: No, thank you.
The Chair
Thank you for our time; we are very grateful and it will help with our later deliberations. There will now be a 30-second break while we test the sound.
The Chair
Good afternoon, Emma, and welcome. Would you kindly introduce yourself to the Committee?
Emma Little-Pengelly: I am Emma Little-Pengelly. I have recently been a special adviser to the First Minister, but I am a barrister by training. I have been special adviser to various First Ministers since 2007, although I stepped out of that to be a public representative and Member of Parliament for a few years.
The Chair
Colleagues, we have scheduled 45 minutes for this session. Who would like to ask the first question?
Gavin Robinson
Q
You know the Bill before us. Would you mind giving us your reflection on its provisions, the rationale for them as you see them, and whether you feel there are elements that have not been achieved or are worthy of consideration by the Committee?
Emma Little-Pengelly: My experience of the existing provisions comes from a more practical point of view, as well as the theoretical and legal aspects of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I had come in initially as a shadow special adviser to help prepare for the restoration of institutions back in 2007. That included working very closely with the drafters office and with machinery of Government elements within the Executive and the Departments in order to look at things such as the ministerial code, how the Executive should operate, and the guidance for Ministers and Departments in relation to what matters needed to come to the Executive. Also, it included issues such as the nomination of Ministers and the First and Deputy First Minister.
Over that period of time, from 2007, obviously we have had a number of significant issues and challenges. Very often they led to periods of negotiation. Much of those negotiations took place within the context of trying to talk about the technical details of the process in which we try to operate in Northern Ireland. It is a very challenging and difficult system to operate. It is a system where, at the very heart, arising from the Belfast/ Good Friday agreement, the key principle is consensus and inclusion. That is a very slow and difficult process for trying to come to decisions.
The key element to remember is that in Northern Ireland we do not have—and have never had for some considerable time since the Belfast agreement—a majoritarian system of government. Therefore, that principle is very much cooked into every part of the process, from the nomination of First and Deputy First Minister and what they can do, singly or acting jointly, to the way the Ministers operate in relation to the Executive. All of that is based on a process of consensus and a process of agreement. That of course means that at times we cannot get agreement, and that has been very, very difficult. Nevertheless, that is the system that we have had. It is the system that we have operated right up until very recently.
In more recent years, there has been a drive to change some of the elements of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement —in particular, around the concept of cross-community voting and consensus, and particularly around the safeguard mechanism of the petition of concern. When you look at the petition of concern, it is important to take a look, carefully, at the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I listened to the evidence very carefully today. I strongly disagree with what was put across, for example, this morning by Daniel from the Committee on the Administration of Justice, in relation to the original intent of the petition of concern mechanism. I think that the proposal that this was supposed to be a very narrow issue, as opposed to it applying to all key issues, simply does not hold up to scrutiny.
I would ask everybody to take a look back at the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The petition of concern is set out in the section referred to as Safeguards, and the Safeguards section that refers to the cross-community voting is entirely separate from the safeguard that sets out the ECHR and the equality protections. The cross-community component of that is set out in 5(d), under strand 1, and yet the ECHR and the equality severable obligations are set out in 5(c) of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement. Those are not conditional on each other; they are entirely separate. It was clear from the Belfast agreement and then the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that the cross-community consensus was to apply to all key decisions.
This is not just in terms of the basic reading of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement or the Northern Ireland Act. I think it is important also to look back at the Hansard for the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill in 1998 and the comments that were made about that Bill from all parties. I think the key thing here is that those commenting on that in the House of Commons were those who negotiated it. It was the Ulster Unionist party—David Trimble and others—along with the Social Democratic and Labour party representatives. It is very clear from reading the Hansard that no issues of concern were raised about the scope of the petition of concern and cross-community vote protections and safeguards as set down in the Safeguards section of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Emma Little-Pengelly: When you look back to the operation of the petition of concern—again, I referenced, in terms of the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill, as it then was, in 1998, the fact that no concerns were raised about the scope of those particular provisions. But likewise, when the Northern Ireland Assembly was established under the First Minister and Deputy First Minister leadership of the Ulster Unionist party and the SDLP, no concerns were raised at that time about the petition of concern. It was still difficult. When you look back at the history of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the various crises that we have faced, of course it is difficult, because the ultimate aim of those provisions, and the provisions across the Northern Ireland Act, arising from the agreement, is that they are all based on consensus building.
We have heard some reference about the petition of concern being used as a veto, but in reality it is used in a way that reflects the fact that there is not yet, or no, consensus on particular issues, and those are key issues, so where a petition of concern is used, it is an indication that an issue has been pushed forward without consensus. That is why, when you look at the new provisions proposed in this Bill—the idea, for example, of a 14-day cooling-off period for a petition of concern is, I think, very welcome. Gavin will know as well as I do that—look, the sustainability procedures and processes as part of the New Decade, New Approach negotiations were something that the Democratic Unionist party pushed very, very hard. We pushed because we could see that it does not benefit the people of Northern Ireland to be in a situation of perpetual crisis, particularly if those crises are manufactured by, for example, the tactical resignation of a First or Deputy First Minister. Ultimately, we do need stability, and stability within a very difficult process to operate. I think the 14-day period, now within this proposed Bill, will allow a period for people to get together to try to find a consensus way forward. That may be through amendment if it is legislation, or it may be by some further or different agreement. But at the very heart of this is the idea that because the institutions were set up to be very inclusive, from the very beginning there was a concern that significant minorities should not be forced to be part of either an Executive or Government in Northern Ireland where they were subject to continual majority decision making.
That applied right up until the point at which Unionism was no longer the majority. We have since seen concerted moves to try to remove that safeguard for significant minorities. The concern there is that yes, it is a difficult and frustrating system, but in Northern Ireland ultimately this will only work if you have that maximum consensus. As I understand from those who negotiated the Belfast agreement, and right through to those who negotiated the St Andrews agreement that modified and built on some of those protections, that at the heart of that is the idea that significant minorities should not be excluded, and that consensus decision making is the priority over a quick and simple majority system, which would exclude those people.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Emma Little-Pengelly: I think that Northern Ireland have found themselves in this position on previous occasions, and in fairness, on those occasions all Ministers have respected that an Executive is not in place, and largely abided by and operated under the decisions previously agreed by it. I agree completely with what Sir Jonathan Stephens said on the safeguard of the courts, but as we know, the court process is long; it requires somebody to take a challenge and often ends up in Ministers taking legal challenges against Ministers.
I would have thought, though, that there is an additional safeguard in that Ministers in Northern Ireland are required to operate lawfully—they cannot step outside of that. If a Minister wanted to take a decision that was significant or controversial or cross-cutting, it is very clear from both the jurisprudence and the legal cases on this, and in terms of what was said at the time of the passing of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, that a Minister has no power—there is no vires for a Minister to take a decision that ought to have come to the Executive under the terms of the St Andrews Act amendments. Therefore, a Minister could not take a decision on a significant, controversial or cross-cutting matter, unless that had already been agreed by the Executive.
In the situation that you have outlined, Gavin, there would be no way to form an Executive. Without the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, you cannot have an Executive meeting and therefore those decisions cannot be decided on because an individual Minister does not have the power or the vires to do that. Therefore, he would be operating ultra vires. I presume that the permanent secretary or the accounting officer of that Department would advise the Minister of that, and that the Minister could not proceed because that would be unlawful under those circumstances.
Colum Eastwood
Q
Secondly, you and I will disagree about the purpose of the petition of concern and when it should be used and so on. You have said, now that Unionism is no longer a majority, there are moves to take away safeguards like the petition of concern. What did you think, then, when Arlene Foster suggested removing it as a mechanism altogether during the negotiations?
Emma Little-Pengelly: First, to be fair to the Democratic Unionist party, I should make it clear that I am not here as a spokesperson for the DUP, so I cannot comment on the particular issues of the current situation. What I can say is that the DUP, along with many others, has, over the years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, pushed for a better form of government, as you will be aware, very much around trying to put better democracy in that and a better system that is not so slow or difficult to try to get agreement through.
There is a real issue around protections and safeguards. It is notable that the petition of concern is in the safeguard section. It does apply to all key decisions. That is the system that was set up—purposely difficult, I suppose, one might say—to ensure that there was maximum buy-in. What we are rapidly seeing is that people now have a particular policy proposal, they get the majority for it and they want to push that forward, against the will of significant sections of the other community.
People need to get back better to fundamental consensus policy making. Potentially we have lost that over the years. As I said, it is slow but there is a benefit to that. When you look back to the original point about intent, it is important to point out that equality and human rights are very well protected, cooked in right across the system.
If you look back to the narrative around the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, including the discussions and the debates in the House of Commons on those matters, you will see that the key safeguards lay with the establishment, under the agreement, of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Human Rights Act, which at any time can give advice or perhaps even take a legal challenge against a Department or the Northern Ireland Assembly—certainly give advice on that.
Importantly, the Northern Ireland Assembly is set up but it does not have competence to deal with matters that would be in contravention of the European convention on human rights or equality legislation. I understand that your evidence will go on next to the Speaker. The Speaker will have a legal team, so it is not even a case of a discretion. The Northern Ireland Assembly, certainly even set down in the agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, emphasised and safeguarded even further in the Human Rights Act 1998, has no power to legislate in a way that is in violation of that. A piece of legislation should never be introduced where there is a decision by the Speaker’s legal panel that is in contravention of that.
What we have seen subsequently is that people will have a range of views about whether something is a breach of human rights, which is very different from whether it is legally a breach of human rights. Of course, that is an evolving issue. There are safeguards there already, but I would also point out that the party of which Mr Eastwood is a member did not raise any concerns about the scope of the petition of concern at the time of the passing of the Northern Ireland Act, nor in the first decade of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s operation, and the operation of the petition of concern. This is an issue that has emerged over the past number of years, on the briefing from the likes of CAJ and others. There was no indication on the record—Hansard or elsewhere—that there was a concern about this.
To go back to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the obligations under strand 1 5(d) are completely separate from the obligations under strand 1 5(c). They are severable. Of course, they can be linked through the special process, which has already been outlined to you, but they are separate. It is very clear from both the spirit and the detail of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that cross-community consensus was to apply to all key decisions.
Mr Walker
Q
Emma Little-Pengelly: Over the years, there has been some frustration about what some may perceive to be breaches of the ministerial code, and a lack of action against those. I think that the proposed changes are welcome, in that they really try to tighten up some of those provisions in relation to how they apply, but ultimately this comes down to two different issues, and I think this applies to all of the provisions in the Bill. These changes are designed to try to encourage better behaviour. For example, when you look at the move from seven days after a resignation to call an election to the rolling process of six weeks and six weeks, that is obviously something that was pushed for to try to encourage people to get around a table, with a series of deadlines to try to encourage a more structured process, I think to focus minds, and also to allow other people to come in and make their representations very clear to the parties that they want the Northern Ireland Assembly to continue, and about the issues that are important to them, as opposed to—as I have said—a tactical resignation.
However, ultimately, as some of the other witnesses have said, this will work only if there is a willingness for people to agree. We all have our issues that we feel very strongly about, and we will not always find consensus on those issues. Some of the people around the table will have been part of coalition Governments before. Coalition Government is frustrating: you will not always find agreement on the way forward, and therefore those issues cannot be progressed. Ultimately, it is about the willingness of people to compromise—to get together to try to find a solution that appeals to everybody across the community. If we try to get into a space where there are only solutions that appeal to the majority, to the exclusion of a significant minority or to the exclusion of a community in Northern Ireland, we would be in a very difficult space in terms of stability, not only of the institutions but of Northern Ireland. I think those who worked on the Belfast agreement and those who worked on the St Andrews agreement recognised that and saw the value in having those types of safeguards to ensure maximum inclusion, because once we go down the route of—for example—removing the safeguards of petition of concern and consensus decision making and moving towards majority decision making, there is the risk of exclusion, and I do not think that is good for people, certainly not on the key decisions. I think it is all about balance.
Mr Walker
Q
Emma Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. When you look back over the 20 years of the operation of these mechanisms, they were there to build trust and confidence in all of the parties across all of the communities to be part of the institutions in Northern Ireland. That is why I highlight the difference between what has happened in more recent elections, where we now have a number of quite significant minorities, and what had happened for the majority of that period of time, which is that there was a Unionist majority. I think that those who drafted these documents and those, including myself, who have worked on this over the years recognised that this was not a majority Government situation in which Unionists, when they were in the majority, simply got everything they wanted and others got nothing.
That is why there needs to be, I suppose, better reflection about why these provisions are there, and the dangers of simply dismissing them. Rather than people jumping up and down and saying, “We are really angry because you are vetoing what we want”, they should sit back and reflect and say, “Look, there is clearly not consensus for this proposal. How do we find a consensus way forward? How do we look at getting a balance within what is happening and try to find a way forward that includes the maximum number of people?” You will never get absolutely everybody on board, and we recognise that, but we have been through really difficult situations before, such as the devolution of policing and justice and trying to work through a programme for government. We have to remember that the parties in Northern Ireland are not just very different constitutionally speaking, but they are very different in that they come from across the political spectrum, from left to right and all things in between. Any coalition Government with parties that are quite diametrically different in political ideologies will always be challenging. That is the challenge that we have; we have got through it in previous years. But we only get through it by getting round a table and finding the consensus way forward, not by majoritarily forcing other people, through the removal of the veto’s protections and safeguards.
Stephen Farry
Q
Perhaps as an example of that, could Emma just reflect on the fact that, to my knowledge, since the Assembly was created in 1999 there has been no instance whatever of it legislating successfully at all in the human rights or equalities sphere? That has never happened and it has always fallen to Westminster to address those issues.
Emma Little-Pengelly: In terms of the provisions, I am not sure that if you look back at how the petition of concern operated from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement onwards—so, from 1998—what you will see would back up your analysis that the petition of concern is used mainly by one particular side of the community.
I say that for this reason. If you look at the bare figures, it does look as if it has been used much more, of course, by the Unionist-designated bloc than by the nationalist-designated bloc. However, that really only changed quite recently, in terms of the Democratic Unionist party obtaining 30 seats, which was the threshold in terms of signing the petition of concern. Prior to that, by default no party had over 30 seats. Therefore, despite the fact that it was not explicit within the petition of concern, the way that the petition of concern practically operated was that you required more than one party to agree with it, and that was including within designations.
I think that what you see, for example within the nationalist designation, is that you do not have and you never had the ability of one party to sign a petition of concern. Therefore, I would suggest that to try to get 30 signatures within that designation on policy issues is much more challenging, because of course you will have significant policy differences between those two parties. However, when the DUP obtained 30 seats or votes in the election, that of course made it much easier to use the petition of concern, and I think that is when some of the issues and concerns arose.
Also, when you look, Dr Farry, at the types of issues for which the petition of concern has been used, you will see that a significant number of those petitions of concern were used, for example, in relation to welfare reform legislation. Again, I think it is important to look at the nature of this issue. For example, it was not the case that the Unionist bloc were not sympathetic to the arguments around welfare reform and that we are not sympathetic to, for example, the proposed welfare mitigations; in fact, I think the opposite is true and that people were very sympathetic. But the concern around that issue lay fundamentally with financial aspects of it.
As we know, with welfare reform happening in Westminster, that had a direct impact in relation to what was happening in Northern Ireland. We were not going to get the hundreds of millions of pounds that would have been required to do the mitigations put forward by a series of amendments by other parties. So, the consideration there in terms of the use of the petition of concern was around this argument: “Look, if this passed in the Assembly, or if these legislative changes are proposed without consensus”—and there was no consensus on those amendments—“there would be a cost to the Northern Ireland Executive of hundreds of millions of pounds of additional money, which would have to be found from the block grant”.
Now, if you look back at that time, you had a DUP Finance Minister, so of course they would have been very attuned to what the concerns were then. But that is a decision that is often used to say that this is a misuse of the petition of concern. In fact, if it had not been used, those hundreds of millions of pounds would have had to be found from across other Departments. Of course, it did include human rights and equality issues because it would have meant, for example, top-slicing or taking funding away from the health service at that time, before it had been reformed, when it required even more money, never mind a top-slicing. It would undoubtedly have required other programmes to stop completely, but without any analysis by the Assembly of what the impact of those changes would have been.
In my view, a decision was taken that it was the responsible thing to do to use the petition of concern in that way to prevent the Assembly from voting on something that was going to cost hundreds of millions of pounds across Departments and have a massive impact on the everyday lives of individuals. Of course, as you know, having been a Minister in the Government, these things are all about balance, but they are also about responsibility and trying to assess the best way to do those things by talking them through and by consensus, not by forcing amendments through where there is clearly no consensus behind them, for example.
The Chair
Q
Emma Little-Pengelly: The only thing I would want to reflect on, I suppose, is really where these proposals came from. As I have indicated, it was the DUP that pushed very hard for the sustainability aspects of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, and we did that very much because of the experience of the preceding three years, where Northern Ireland was left in a really appalling situation of not only having no local devolved Government, but having no real direct-rule Ministers either, so civil servants were left in the position where they had to try to make decisions with no accountability, no democratic accountability and no guidance.
I do not think the Bill is in any way perfect, but I do think it is progress. The key thing is to try to ensure that there is not that incentive for others to bring the institutions down and cause instability in a tactical way, and to recognise that at times there will be major constitutional issues—we are seeing that at the moment with protocol, for example—and other issues of serious concern that we have had before. In those situations, of course it is absolutely right for people to raise their personal concerns, their party concerns and their community concerns to say, “This is simply not sustainable as a way forward.”
I know that that cannot be prevented and should not be prevented, but ultimately, this is a step forward to try to encourage greater stability, which is much needed across Northern Ireland.
The Chair
Thank you for your time today, Emma. I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that I wish you well.
Colleagues, we are a little early. We were meant to hear from Mark Durkan at quarter past three, but we are trying to make contact with him. We are ready to go, so we will bring things forward. I am beginning to think that this is all to do with the football match, but I could be wrong.
Examination of Witness
Mark Durkan gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, Mark. I think this is a conspiracy to do with the football because we seem to be getting through things very quickly. We have earmarked 45 minutes for your session. Would you explain to everyone who you are and what you do?
Mark Durkan: I am Mark Durkan, and I suppose the reason I may be of interest to these inquiries is that I was one of the people who negotiated the Good Friday agreement. I also served in the institutions and the Executive, as the Finance Minister in the first Executive and then as Deputy First Minister elected by the Assembly in 2001. Then the Assembly was suspended in 2002. I also served from 2001 to 2010 as SDLP leader and as Member of Parliament for Foyle from 2005 to 2017. I was involved in various negotiations, including St Andrews, Leeds Castle, all the various Hillsborough talks and all of the other impasse negotiations that were around difficulties about interpretation and implementation of the Good Friday agreement and some of the subsequent agreements.
The Chair
You are most welcome, Mark, albeit virtually. Our first question today is from Alex Davies-Jones.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Mark Durkan: I think it has damaged it hugely. For too long, Governments and others have tried to pretend it is as though the tyre is only flat at the bottom whenever we do not have the rights, provisions and promises of the Good Friday agreement upheld and implemented. It is not just that the Bill of Rights has not been implemented; we have seen regression in recent years because there were absolutely explicit commitments in the Good Friday agreement to the European convention on human rights, of it being accessible in the domestic courts in Northern Ireland and that it could be used specifically to allow the courts to strike down legislation in the Assembly.
Mo Mowlam worked very hard as Secretary of State and the areas of the agreement that she concentrated on most were the areas to do with rights, equal rights, equality and other safeguards. The fact is that she ensured that we had a strong Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and a strong Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which would be a way of giving voice and reality to those commitments on rights. The fact is that subsequent Governments adopted a position that said: “Well, we’re not really going to move on a Bill of Rights unless there is total agreement among the parties.”
The way the Good Friday agreement was written, it charged Westminster with the responsibility to legislate for a Bill of Rights, on top of its commitment to ensure that the European convention on human rights would apply to all public authorities and bodies. We did not get to follow through on that as far as the additional provisions of a Bill of Rights alongside the European convention is concerned, but in the post-Brexit legislation, we have seen holes being drilled into the commitments that are made there to the European convention on human rights.
Now, Ministers of the Crown have powers—it is almost like a form of direct overrule—to supersede decisions and choices at the devolved level in the name, for instance, of protecting the internal market of the UK. Those decisions can completely ignore any concerns around the European convention on human rights and a public body is actually forbidden to cite concerns about the European convention on human rights as to why it would not comply with what a Minister of the Crown has said. We have gone well off-road in what was envisaged in the Good Friday agreement in respect of rights.
One other thing I would say about rights, because this Bill touches on the whole question of petition of concern, is that it was the thinking at the time we negotiated the agreement that the petition of concern was not a petition of veto, it was not even a petition of objection, but that it would be used to trigger a special proofing procedure during which a special Assembly committee would hear specifically from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. So the petition of concern was very much rights and equality focused. It was to be there as a proofing procedure to ensure rights were upheld. It was never there to prevent rights being legislated for, which is how it has turned round to be abused.
The Chair
Alex, if I could just interrupt you for a moment. Mark, we can all hear you very well indeed, but our technical team here is not hearing you very well and cannot do anything to turn up the volume. Of course, we are trying to record your evidence for Hansard purposes. If you can try and get as close to your microphone, wherever it is, that would be helpful for those trying to record things here.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Mark Durkan: I think again that it is a key bit of the architecture that is missing. The Civic Forum was agreed by the parties in the strand 1 negotiations. We recognised that the Assembly was going to have many challenges and difficulties and agreed that it would be useful to supplement the elected representation in the Assembly with a strong Civic Forum. The thinking that some of us had was that maybe a Civic Forum involving a variety of stakeholders and public policy interests would be an outrider on some of the more difficult structural challenges that we would face in Northern Ireland in trying to rebalance our economy and make sure that a rebalanced economy also went along with a better balanced region, and also in tackling issues of a shared future and some of the big structural problems that we needed to change.
The idea was that work could proceed in the Civic Forum in ways that could frame issues for debate and choice that could then be taken up by the Assembly and Executive themselves. The fact is that the Civic Forum, when it was in operation, did start to do some of that work in forward strategic thinking, but unfortunately, while the Assembly was restored some years after it collapsed in 2002 after Stormont-gate, spy-gate—whatever people want to call it—the Civic Forum never was, and that is a loss.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Mark Durkan: I think we need progress in relation to the Bill of Rights. We need to try to clarify exactly what damage may have been done to the standing of the European convention on human rights and the reliance that citizens can place on it. A very direct promise was made to citizens in Northern Ireland about the European convention on human rights, but several of the Acts on the foot of Brexit have diluted that quite significantly, so I think that needs to be improved. While this Bill makes some improvements to the petition of concern—it weeds out some of the abuses in terms of how quickly or easily people table a petition of concern, so it is more qualified—it does not actually fix the problem with the petition of concern, which goes right back to the original 1998 legislation.
This is not a criticism of Mo Mowlam or of Paul Murphy, who brought that Bill through at the time, but that Bill translated the Good Friday agreement into statute in pretty short order, and the fact is that it did not properly translate what was intended in terms of the petition of concern. As I said earlier, the petition of concern was never to be a petition of veto, or even a petition of objection. It was to be there to trigger a special procedure, which the Assembly would then use and which would also call in the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission. It was to be joined-up scrutiny for rights and equality.
Of course, that has not happened and instead we have had the petition of concern being abused as essentially a dead-end veto, played almost as wild, as a joker at times, even against censure motions on Ministers. It was never intended to be so used. Some of the provisions in the Bill weed some of those bad habits out, but they do not correct the basic architectural mistake that the 1998 legislation never properly provided for paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement to be put into statute.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Q
Mark Durkan: Thank you for that question, Clare. First of all, there is a problem with what you describe as a pre-emptive veto—in the past, I have used the phrase “predictive veto”. That certainly stems from, first, the petition of concern itself, because once parties start to moot the possibility that a proposal or a part of a Bill might be the subject of a petition of concern, that very much helps to stop a lot of the preparation and a lot of the thinking.
Even at the prelegislative stage, issues end up staying inside Government Departments, or on the Executive table even, and not going to the Assembly because people sense that there will be a petition of concern, so we end up with a bit of a stand-off, or gridlock. Issues that should be the subject of clear, concrete proposals often find themselves remaining in hidden contemplation at Departments because people are afraid of triggering the petition of concern process. In that sense, it has ended up being like a predictive veto. The petition of concern was meant to be there so that issues could be properly considered and perused because of their equality and human rights implications. It was not there to stop proposals being tabled in the first place, but it has had that effect.
In terms of what Daniel seems to have said this morning about the St Andrews veto, that refers to the fact that, as part of the St Andrews agreement, an additional point of veto ended up being created explicitly at the Executive, whereby three Ministers could call in any measure—even one being dealt with by another Minister—to the Executive. They could also then subject that to a cross-community voting requirement at the Executive itself. Again, in this provision, there was no reference to equality, rights or any grounds on which such a veto or call-in power had to be selectively used. It was not there; it was just wide open and free range. At the time of the St Andrews negotiations, I referred to it as a “drive-by veto” that would be used on top of the difficulties that we already had with the petition of concern. Of course, again, this has meant that rather than giving due consideration to legitimate and much-needed proposals—often those that have been directed or requested by the courts—the Executive are not able to do that simply owing to this additional veto, which was created as part of the St Andrews negotiation.
Claire Hanna
Q
Mark Durkan: I do not think there was a point in principle in that change as such. The reason why it was an imperative for the DUP to seek that change was because the DUP did not want to be in the voting lobby along with Sinn Féin to elect the First and Deputy First Ministers. The Good Friday agreement very deliberately provided for the joint election of the First and Deputy First Ministers by the Assembly on an open-nomination basis. Any two Members of the Assembly could have been proposed by any Member of the Assembly to be First Minister and Deputy First Minister, or, as we would have preferred to have the wording, joint First Ministers.
The DUP were afraid that if they were going to vote for Ian Paisley, they would have to vote for Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness together, and they would be in the yes Lobby in the Assembly, possibly on their own. The first move that the DUP and the two Governments made to try to resolve that momentary issue—it would have been the 10 or 15 minutes of a Division—was to say, “Well, we will force all the other parties into the Lobby with you.” From December 2004, the whole way up until St Andrews, it was the position of Sinn Féin, the DUP and the two Governments that the agreement was going to be changed so that no other party would get to be nominating Ministers under the d’Hondt rules if they had not also voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. This was an attempt to oblige the SDLP and the UUP to be in the lobbies with the DUP voting for Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, as the price of being included in ministerial office.
We as a party were very clear. We had negotiated elective inclusion into the Good Friday agreement. We had negotiated it there for everybody. Nobody had to even support the agreement to be eligible for elective inclusion; nobody had to vote for the First and Deputy First Ministers to be eligible for inclusion. When Seamus Mallon and David Trimble were elected, the DUP voted against and Sinn Féin abstained but they still got appointed Ministers. The plan was to change the rules to force the SDLP and the UUP to vote for them.
Whenever the DUP realised that neither the SDLP nor the UUP would comply with those terms, and therefore they were going to be in the Lobby on their own, they came up with this other device instead, that said, “Well, we will pre-assign, on an exclusive basis, the nomination of First Minister to the biggest party of the biggest designation. We will also privatise the nomination of the Deputy First Minister to the biggest party of the second biggest designation.” It was purely to remove that 15 minutes of discomfort for the DUP on one day.
What has happened since then has been that that change has meant that the Assembly elections have been tribalised even more deeply than they would have been, because they have been turned into a first-past-the-post race for First Minister, with the DUP saying, “You have to back us to make sure we are the biggest Unionist party and the biggest party, otherwise you could have a Sinn Féin First Minister.” Similarly, Sinn Féin are using it on the other side, saying, “Rub the DUP’s nose in it. We can take First Minister off them if everybody piles in behind us.” That is not what having proportional representation elections for the Assembly was designed to produce.
It has also meant that the office has had less of an air of jointery around it. Remember, they are nominated separately; they are not nominated or elected jointly. More fundamentally, there has been a weakening of the sense of accountability of the First and Deputy First Ministers. When the First and Deputy First Ministers are not appointed by the Assembly, they may feel less accountable to the Assembly. We have seen that with changes in previous years in relation to levels of Budget scrutiny. We also saw it at other times. For instance, there was a motion by the leader of the SDLP in the Assembly back at the end of 2016 around the renewable heat incentive. It was a motion calling Arlene Foster to account.
Arlene Foster’s attitude as First Minister was that she resented being called into the Assembly and she just parroted that she had a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland. She did not have a mandate from the Assembly. Her only mandate was to those who voted for the DUP. The DUP, in that previous Assembly election, got a smaller share of the vote than the Labour party, then in opposition in Great Britain, had done. The idea that this was a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland, not from the Assembly, created some of the tensions and some of what I would say—maybe unfairly—was evidence of arrogance on the part of the holders of that office. It all stemmed back to those St Andrews changes, which essentially privatised those two appointments simply to two parties and gave other parties no say in the appointment of Ministers.
I would contrast that with my own experience. To be elected as First Minister and joint First Minister, David Trimble and I had to have the support of not just members of our own parties but members of other parties. Indeed, some members of other parties had to even stretch to redesignate themselves to so elect us. You were always conscious that you owed your election and your level of accountability to all parties—not just to be obsessed with your own party’s mandate.
Claire Hanna
Q
Mark Durkan: As I understand it, the New Decade, New Approach negotiations involved a push by some parties to say that there was a need to lock in stability or sustainability, and that the way in which the Executive had fallen after the resignation of Martin McGuinness was something that needed to be corrected or avoided. I am not sure that the scheme provided for in this legislation really does lock in stability. In some cases, it may lock in what might be a pretty untenable situation of a caretaker set of Ministers limping on in office.
In fairness, we have to accept that every time we have tried to solve some of the conundrums that come up with the agreement, we find ourselves coming up against the same basic problem. It is a bit like, “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza”. Every time we try to solve one procedural or structural problem, we find ourselves coming up against another one, and in many cases we find ourselves coming up against the same basic question: is there really the will and commitment to truly honour and uphold disparate power sharing, both in the joint office of First Minister and in a power-sharing Executive? I am not sure that the proposals adequately answer that.
You can see, I think, that there is planning permission in the proposals for roll-over periods of every six weeks, potentially, where you have caretaker Ministers. No doubt kites will be flown that there are proposals to break through the impasse, and then we will find that that does not work, and there are more recriminations and still more roll-over of caretaker Ministers. How credible that will be, I am not sure. Whether the public will regard that as sustainability in the way that the parties that wanted the changes in NDNA talked about, I am not sure.
Then, of course, there is the issue about what is called representation—that the Secretary of State may step in, notwithstanding provisions elsewhere in the Bill, to call an election because he thinks that there is not sufficient representation among the Ministers who are in office to enjoy cross-community support in the Assembly. I think that was the phrase used in NDNA, but it is not used in this legislation. I assume that that is to address the possibility that one of the First Ministers could resign, other Ministers might resign, and in essence a shell of an Executive would continue, but it does not seem to me that the issue is properly dealt with. It seems to me that we are looking at planning permission for new brinks to be brought to teeter on, which is what happened even with some of the St Andrews changes, and some of the other procedural adjustments that have been made.
There is the question of what powers the Ministers will have. The suggestion is that their powers will be qualified and limited—NDNA said, of course, nothing significant or controversial. The question then arises of how many weeks you can really go on for on that basis, and who is to judge what is controversial. Do you have an Executive Committee that is able to operate? If we are talking about a period of either 24 weeks or even, as the Bill provides for, up to 48 weeks, where you have this kind of zombie Executive, what happens to the North South Ministerial Council? The Good Friday agreement provided very clearly that the Assembly and the North South Ministerial Council are so interdependent and so interlinked that one cannot function without the other. It seems to me that we have come up with a scenario of a period, possibly of up to a year, where you could have an Assembly functioning in some sort of quasi-status form and Ministers in a shell of an Executive, but without a basis for NSMC meetings to take place. That is not the institutional, interdependent, interlinked balance that the Good Friday agreement specified. The Good Friday agreement is explicit on the interdependence of the strand 1 and strand 2 institutions, but NDNA seems to have come up with a way of sustaining strand 1 in a way that could not actually sustain strand 2 at the same time.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Q
Mark Durkan: In terms of the agreement, the Bill is meant to uphold and follow through on understandings that were reached by five parties and the two Governments in the NDNA, and that was the price of getting devolution restored. I look at the Bill not as something that is going to directly damage the Good Friday agreement. I would say it is something that does not go far enough to restore and repair the Good Friday agreement, to correct its standing. What is missing is the true correction correcting the original architectural flaw in the original 1998 legislation around the petition of concern. What is in the Bill about qualifying the use of the petition of concern is helpful and good, but it does not go far enough to correct the basic architectural flaw about the absence of the special procedure and the focus on equality and human rights, so that is something that could be improved.
Likewise, in terms of the appointment of First Ministers, I would prefer legislation that restored the factory setting of the Good Friday agreement and allowed for the joint election by the Assembly of joint First Ministers. That is going to be particularly important coming up to the next Assembly election when there will be all sorts of speculation about the possible permutations of numerical strengths of different parties. The terms that were fixed at St Andrews say that the biggest party in the biggest designation gets one nomination, and the next nomination goes to the biggest party in the next biggest designation, but they also provide for the fact that if the biggest party is not in the biggest designation, it will get to appoint the First Minister, and then the Deputy First Minister will go to the biggest party in the biggest designation. So, you can see areas where parties will speculate that they might score very highly in the election in terms of seats but end up, because of St Andrews, being disqualified from the exclusive nominating rights that are fixed. It would be much better if the whole Assembly, as elected at the next Assembly election, had the responsibility of jointly electing First and Deputy First Ministers, and if all parties had responsibilities for making the Government work, rather than being able to say, “It’s the problem of those two parties,” which are preassigned those two nominating positions by the random results of the election. Nobody else can be nominated to anything without the First and Deputy First Ministers being nominated.
The repair work that could be done and the prevention of some pretty serious anomalies or absurdities that could potentially arise after the next election have not been achieved by the Bill. I do not think that we should be precluded from thinking that through further, in order to avoid an impasse after the next election.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Mark Durkan: I do not fully accept that. The whole point about the petition of concern at the time was to ensure that we had—I used this phrase earlier—joined-up scrutiny and that we would make sure that there could be a connection between the quality of Assembly consideration and the advice or evidence that might come from the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission or indeed others.
Remember that the whole promise of the Bill of Rights in the agreement was very much a promise to citizens. That is one of the reasons I lament the absence of a Bill of Rights. When we were negotiating the agreement, our thinking was that the reliance on things like the petition of concern would reduce in circumstances where you had a live Bill of Rights and the good custom and practice of people being able to exercise their own challenges. Parties would not then have to rely on some of these other designation-related devices. It was there for a reason. Yes, the agreement and the legislation are clear about the obligations around rights, including the European convention on human rights. But the logic and strength of that has been watered down by much of the legislation that has happened since Brexit, because the European convention on human rights does not have the same strength of standing in Northern Ireland after some of those bits of legislation as it did.
We are in a bizarre situation whereby a public authority can say to a Northern Ireland Minister, “You cannot ask us to breach the European convention on human rights,” and they are within their rights to do so and to challenge any request, demand or pressure by a Minister or Department to so do. But they will not be in a position to so challenge a demand or instruction from a Minister of the Crown under, for instance, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Those instructions can apply directly to Departments in Northern Ireland or to other public bodies. What was envisaged in the Good Friday agreement, which Mo Mowlam in particular put so much work into the wording and strength of, is now diminished. I would like to see it restored.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Mark Durkan: Yes, and the courts in Northern Ireland are given under the agreement the power to strike down legislation of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the grounds of incompatibility. They do not have the power to strike down legislation from Westminster, for instance. They do not have the power to strike down decisions that might be taken by a Minister of the Crown under something like the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. The decisions of a Minister of the Crown cannot be challenged in the courts. The UK Internal Market Act specifically provided for there being no challenge in the courts of Northern Ireland, or indeed in any other courts, on that basis.
That knocks a pretty big hole in the intended effect of the commitments on the European convention on human rights, which was provided for as part of the Human Rights Act. When negotiating the agreement, one of the reasons we were able to agree that the work on the Bill of Rights was something that would be for the future—for the next few years—was that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush. The promise of the European convention being available and accessible in the domestic courts in Northern Ireland, on the basis of the Human Rights Act, meant there was a starting point—there was already a starter for 10—as far as rights protections, alongside the institutions, was concerned. But the intent and the expectation was that there would also be some additional rights that would go alongside the European convention and that, together, those rights and the European convention would constitute a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights.
It would have been good to achieve that. I think it would also relieve the temptation that parties sometimes feel to use devices like the petition of concern and other structural blocks in the name of saying they are reserving or protecting rights, when they are actually preventing decisions. The more robust and articulate a Bill of Rights that can be taken to the courts, the better for the decision-making processes.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Mark Durkan: The word in the agreement is not “unique” but “particular”. From my memory, that was because one negotiator in particular and one party would have voice-activated apoplexy any time anybody said Northern Ireland was a “unique situation” or “unique”. George Mitchell, Ministers of both Governments and all sorts of people found themselves seized with this fierce reaction to the suggestion that we were unique. “Particular” was, apparently, allowed, so that is what is there.
In the wording of the agreement, we did not specify—we did not give lists of examples of the particularities—and that was simply because we did not want to turn that section of the agreement into a sort of sin sheet, whereby we would each record or voice sensibilities about rights breaches or perceived rights breaches that had been endured, either through governmental or non-governmental and other actions.
Obviously, Northern Ireland does have very particular circumstances. At the time we were negotiating the agreement, there was a lot of talk around group rights. For instance, people were talking about that in relation to the parades issues, from two different sides and two different senses of rights. They were partly being talked about there, but we were not writing that specifically into the agreement.
Obviously, there is a statement in the agreement that makes a commitment—a kind of “from here on in”, future-looking commitment—around certain rights in Northern Ireland. Some of those touch on some of the issues that maybe are not dealt with in this Bill but are dealt with in other aspects of NDNA.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Mark Durkan: I think you can have both—it does not have to be an either/or. The forum having its own standing is good—it can take on work, particularly long-term work that may need careful framing of options and choices, and scoping out some of the issues and potential problems. We saw the forum as something that could do that, but we do not think it is the only form of civic engagement or input that there should be.
Let us not forget part of the success of a different aspect of the agreement in terms of policing—the Patten plan. We think the role of the independent members of the Policing Board was part of the strength of making that new beginning for policing happen and succeed during some very challenging times in the early days of the Policing Board and some challenging issues, in terms of the Omagh bombing report and the issues around, “I’m retiring; no, I’m not retiring”, by the then Chief Constable. The independents had a key role alongside the elected representatives. That is something that we can replicate in other ways. When it comes to prelegislative scrutiny in the Assembly, for instance, there is no reason why members of the public with particular policy insider expertise and credibility in given policy communities should not be there alongside MLAs.
There are different models and options, but there is certainly a big appetite among the public for it to be not just politicians alone who decide those things—or, more often than not, fail to decide them—and then recriminate those who are to blame.
Mr Walker
Q
You have talked about the importance of the Good Friday agreement institutions. I absolutely recognise that. Do you accept that, since the NDNA deal was reached, we have seen the restoration of devolution? We have seen meetings of the British Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. We have seen those institutions functioning. It required an agreement, as you say, with the input of both the British and the Irish Governments and all five parties to reach it.
I appreciate there are aspects of the Bill that you and your party might feel ought to be different, and aspects of the St Andrews agreement architecture that you may not like. Do you accept, however, that in order to get the devolved institutions restored and the institutions of the Good Friday agreement itself properly functioning, we needed to get the buy-in of all five parties and therefore reach a deal that was acceptable to all of them?
Mark Durkan: Yes, I do. I said that I recognised that NDNA was an agreement by all the parties and it was the price that had to be paid for getting the institutions restored. I am glad that it is the case, too, as you say, Minister, that it is not just the Assembly and the Executive who have been operating; obviously, this week we had the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and other things, and I am very glad of that.
I am at a loss to understand why there was a decade when the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference did not meet. I think that the two Governments gave a very bad example as the supposed co-guarantors of the agreement. The one bit of the agreement that falls particularly to them was not being honoured. The Governments were not always in the strongest place by appearing to criticise either or both Sinn Féin and the DUP for the failure to restore the Assembly for three years, in circumstances where the two Governments had failed in their responsibilities.
Yes, I recognise the limitations in the NDNA. The problem is that some of those limitations are being translated into statute here. The promise is that this legislation is there to give stability and sustainability, but rather than blocking instability, there is a danger that it locks in a sort of zombie Executive and creates difficulties between parties, as well as creating difficulties in which the Secretary of State can be implicated. I think that the more we get into those sorts of difficulties, the harder things are.
This Bill does not rescue us from the sorts of absurdities that might emerge with possible election results at the next Assembly election. With a bit of speculation as to the different strengths of different parties, you could have very serious difficulties trying to appoint the First Minster and Deputy First Minister, as provided for in the St Andrews agreement, due to the random nature of the electoral results in terms of the number of Assembly seats. Those seats determine who has the prescribed right to nominate the First Minister and who has the prescribed right to nominate the Deputy First Minister. It becomes a real problem, and that will be a problem that discolours a lot of the election debate. It is going to bring people into all sorts of difficulties due to technical voting, tribalistic voting and all sorts of other things. We should be free of that. We should be trying to correct the St Andrews damage there, and I make no apology for that.
I think that proposed new paragraphs (e), (f) and (l), set out in clause 4(1), provide useful additions to the ministerial code in relation to good community relations and equality of opportunity, and also in relation to public appointments, civil service appointments and the code of conduct for special advisers. Those are useful additions, although I do not know whether there is a particular reason why some of the original terms of the code of conduct are now being omitted. For instance, one requires Ministers at all times to
“ensure all reasonable requests for information from the Assembly, users of services and individual citizens are complied with; and that Departments and their staff conduct their dealings with the public in an open and responsible way”.
That seems to have been omitted for the first time, and I do not know why.
Similarly, there are references elsewhere in the original version to users of services, but there is now no reference to users of services in the ministerial code of conduct. Even some of the opening language in the original version has been changed. It had required Ministers
“to observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity involving impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relationship to the stewardship of public funds”.
The opening language in the new version is arguably weaker. I am not aware of which parties either argued for or agreed that weakening of language.
Mr Walker
Q
Overall, this should be a strengthening of the ministerial code, alongside some of the other mechanisms to enhance the stability of the Executive. This is about trying to support them. I would agree with your evidence and that of the former permanent secretary, but what we all want to see is good will from all parties to keep the Executive fully functioning and to avoid a situation in which these mechanisms are required. It is very important that we see that.
With regard to the possibility of what you called a zombie Executive—the Opposition talked about caretaker Ministers—do you accept, given the experience that we had during the long period of the absence of the Executive, with civil servants really being put in an impossible position, that it is useful during any potential period of interregnum to have a Minister in place who is able to take decisions within their departmental remit, to allow for some accountability within that, on the basis of the programme for government on which they were originally put in place? That would allow for continuity of departmental decisions and give some cover to their civil servants in a future period in which we might be without a First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Mark Durkan: I take that point, Minister, but you said “some cover”. Given that the decisions are not meant to be on matters that are significant or controversial, some cover might be quite limited. Some of the difficulties and frustrations that the civil servants had in the previous period of abeyance could equally apply, but they would have Ministers who are not at full power or status and who may not have the benefit of actually operating inside an actual Executive, in those terms. It will be a pretty limp-along situation. It will be a sort of twilight zone, both politically and administratively.
I know you will say that, with the roll-over periods and things like that, there are options for the Assembly, and that if the position becomes completely unsustainable, in terms of cross-community support, there is the power for the Secretary of State to intervene to call an election. However, I think we need to recognise that we are providing for a series of episodic crises and anomalies that can happen under this legislation. In Northern Ireland, people have a habit of being able to conjure up all sorts of problems and interpretive misapplications of provisions to create particular problems. We have seen that previously in relation to provisions of the agreement or in subsequent legislation. As I say, I do not expect that there could ever be perfection in a Bill like this, because there is a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, and people keep coming up against some of the same problems, no matter how many patches or solutions we come up with.
However, I think we need to recognise that this imperfection means that it probably will not be very long after the next Assembly election until you will be looking at possibly more remedial legislation to deal with the probably untenable situation that might exist around the St Andrews provisions for the appointment of First Ministers. I think it would be better to correct that now. I think it is in all parties’ interests that that is corrected, in terms of equalising the title of the offices of First and Deputy First Ministers, and also restoring the joint election by the Assembly, and maybe relying not only on parallel consent but on other measures of cross-community support. I think that would safeguard the atmosphere around the election debate and would safeguard the choices of the public from being pulled into all sorts of tactical voting considerations owing to a pretty tribalistic agenda around the totemic significance, supposedly, of the title of First Minister, which should not be a singular title.
The Chair
Mark, even though I dare say that the Minister wants to continue the questioning, we cannot; you have, in fact, used up the 15 minutes we gained, and we are due to finish hearing your evidence at 4 o’clock. We thank you very much indeed for the time you spent with us this afternoon. I know I speak for everyone when I say that I wish you well.
Mark Durkan: Thank you, Sir David.
The Chair
In our last session this afternoon we will hear from Alex Maskey, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly; Lesley Hogg, the Clerk of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and Dr Gareth McGrath, the director of parliamentary services at the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is just to prove that I can read what is in front of me. I have introduced our three witnesses, but would you expand on your jobs, please?
Alex Maskey: My name is Alex Maskey. I am the Speaker of the Assembly. I was elected to this position in January 2020, when the Assembly was reconstituted on the basis of the NDNA agreement.
Lesley Hogg: I am Lesley Hogg, Clerk and chief executive of the Assembly. I took up post in 2016.
Dr McGrath: I am Gareth McGrath, director of parliamentary services. I took up my post with the Assembly in 2008.
The Chair
Thank you for your time this afternoon. Which colleague would like to ask the first question? I call Mr Stephen Farry.
Stephen Farry
Q
Alex Maskey: Thanks, Stephen—it is good to talk to you again. You have been missed in the Assembly for a while, let me tell you. Thanks to you, Chair, and to the Committee, for allowing me and my two colleagues Lesley and Gareth to appear today. Obviously, we want to make a number of points on the procedures and potential unintended consequences, given the slight difference between the scenarios that exist within Westminster and what exists and is pertinent to ourselves in the Assembly.
As Speaker and as officials, we have no view on the substance of the NDNA, or indeed the content or intentions of any of the aspects of it, but we are obviously very much aware of the fact that this Assembly was reconstituted on the basis of that particular agreement being reached by the parties and the Governments involved in those discussions at the time. I would have been involved in some of those conversations myself but, as you all know, once I take up the role of Speaker, as is the case for all Speakers, we immediately adopt a position of impartiality and independence and take no opinion on any of these matters. I am dealing with this, and my colleagues are going to deal with this, on an exclusively procedural basis.
We had a number of concerns. They may well be on a little bit of a cautious basis, but we thought that we would draw them to the attention of the NIO in the first instance. That is why we wrote to them, and eventually met them as well, to discuss this matter. A number of the issues of concern that we had were around the procedural and technical aspects of it, as I have said. It is about supporting the day-to-day operation of the Assembly, so our concerns are exclusively about making sure that any changes that occur through the Bill are clear and can be delivered practically.
I will just touch on a couple of the issues that you have referred to, Stephen. For example, the Bill includes triggering a consideration period of 14 days when a petition of concern is presented by 30 Members. As currently drafted, it would appear that this period of 14 days cannot be shortened in any way, which could present a significant issue when a vote on a matter that is the subject of a petition is time-sensitive—for example, a statutory rule, a legislative consent motion or some other types of regulation. In a more malign sense, it could also be used to stymie business: if people want to upset some of those time-sensitive matters, they could put in a petition of concern.
That might seem outlandish or unreasonable, given the way that the petition of concern has been dealt with in the past couple of years, but nevertheless we thought we would draw attention to the fact that this 14-day period might actually lead to an issue. In fact, any shortened period or any number of days set beyond where we are at the minute could lead to some of these unintended consequences, so we just want to draw them to the attention of the Committee, as we did to the NIO.
People also need to understand that the Bill requires that the Assembly Standing Orders provide for the implementation of the new arrangements for the petition of concern, which include a 14-day consideration period. It is not yet clear if or when the Standing Orders required would be agreed by the Assembly, and consequently the existing Standing Orders would continue to apply. We already have an example of this. We had a Bill passed some time ago, and there was not the political agreement within the Assembly on a cross-community basis to put that into the Standing Orders. That was the John McCallister Opposition Bill, so these things can actually happen in reality.
Moving on to the proposal that outgoing Ministers would continue to be in office for an extended period following an election or since an Executive was in place, the only comment to note is that the Standing Orders of the Assembly are clear that Committees are not established after an election until all ministerial offices have been filled. Therefore, if Ministers remain in office, there is the proposal for Ministers to exercise some level of function without the normal accompanying Committee scrutiny.
Finally, I want to comment on the proposal to prohibit the Speaker and Deputy Speakers from signing a petition of concern throughout all of the mandate. In relation to the Speaker, Stephen, you will of course know that this simply puts existing practice into law, but in relation to the three Deputy Speakers, the position is different. As currently drafted, by prohibiting a Deputy Speaker from signing a petition of concern even if they would not be chairing that item in that capacity, there is the potential to deter Members from serving actively as a Deputy Speaker, and occasionally parties may be reluctant to allow one of their Members to serve as a Deputy Speaker if they cannot sign a petition of concern throughout the mandate.
Intentionally or unintentionally, that could impact on the inclusivity of the team of Deputy Speakers who work with the Speaker, on the basis that if Members cannot sign a petition of concern throughout the whole of the mandate, as I say, some individual Members may have some particular issues of interest on which they would wish to reserve the right to do that. It may put them off, or indeed it may put the parties off, given that we need 30 Members now to sign a petition of concern. No party at the moment can deliver those 30 signatures on its own.
Parties may be a bit reluctant to allow their Members to sign petitions of concern, which could affect the inclusive nature of having Deputy Speakers from across the current main parties. We were just trying to set out to the Committee and the Northern Ireland Office that we want to avoid situations where the Speaker and officials would have to resolve any ambiguity or deficiency in any of these provisions.
We are happy enough to come back in if there are any other issues that we have left out. Maybe I will ask Gareth, in the first instance, if he wants to add anything.
Stephen Farry
Q
Dr McGrath: Mr Farry will recall from many discussions of petitions of concern over many years that the devil in these matters is in the detail. It is almost impossible to envisage all the scenarios that could be captured in relation to the 14-day period. As Mr Speaker mentioned, a number of matters would be obvious to us, such as statutory rules, prayers of annulment and legislative consent motions, but there may be a plethora of other statutory motions, as I would call them, in primary legislation throughout the statute book. It is quite difficult to say, “If it isn’t 14 days, is it 10 days or seven days? What is it?” From that perspective, some sort of mechanism that could take into account when a statutory deadline will impact on the 14-day period would be helpful. It would be almost impossible for me to get into defining that in more detail.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Alex Maskey: What we would be concerned about is that under our rules, once we have an election, we would appoint the Speaker and Deputy Speakers before anyone else. Then we would appoint Ministers and Committees. First, we need agreement on a cross-community basis in order to elect our Speakers. Secondly, if we were not to have new Ministers, and outgoing Ministers were caretakers, you could have a situation where there would be little scrutiny or accountability of the work that they were doing, albeit that they would still be operating on a caretaker basis. That would be a concern for us.
We would also have an issue on the question of sufficient representation, which we would like better clarified. I do not want to have to navigate undefined or ill-defined conditions, such as “sufficient representation”. The NIO is suggesting it would want flexibility in that case, which I can fully understand, but we are drawing attention to the fact that that could give us the issue of trying to navigate something that is not very well defined.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Alex Maskey: I would not necessarily say so, to be truthful with you. That is always a work in progress, I suppose. I would not necessarily say that that would create any further difficulties than we already have.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Alex Maskey: For me, as Speaker and as someone who will remain impartial on this, I am trying to draw out, as are our officials, what areas are not as clear as we might like, but we support the legislation, and we will support what the Assembly decides. At the end of the day, it is not for us to make specific proposals. We are certainly very happy for our officials to continue to liaise with the NIO on some of these matters, but for us, in our role, to put specific proposals probably would not help, and would be inadvisable.
Claire Hanna
Q
Alex Maskey: Again, Claire, it would not be for me to put a proposal on the table on that, because as you know, people guard very jealously—I certainly do—the professional requirement to be independent and impartial. While I fully accept and appreciate that our Assembly is predicated and reconstituted on the basis of New Decade, New Approach and all its contents, I want to see them all delivered as a matter of integrity and public confidence-building. By the same token, the substance of each of those provisions is really a matter for all the parties and the Governments to work out, and we will service those diligently.
Claire Hanna
Q
Lesley Hogg: Obviously, the ministerial code will now be monitored, and complaints against the ministerial code will be taken up by the Commissioner for Standards, but I think that is really as far as I would like to comment at this stage. As the Speaker says, we will obviously implement whatever decisions are taken. The code of conduct is embedded in the ministerial code and would therefore come under the remit of the Commissioner for Standards.
Dr McGrath: It has always been the case that the Speaker has no role in the code of conduct for Ministers.
Claire Hanna
Q
Again, I suppose this is relatively moot in your term, Alex, because the POC has not been deployed while you have been in post, but what is your understanding of the requirement for those Committees to be established under the current framework?
Alex Maskey: You know that as part of the Good Friday agreement, that framework was agreed, but it was never, if you like, replicated in the Assembly. Speaking as someone involved in the Good Friday agreement, that was one of key areas people were focusing on to make sure we built the new instructions on a proper framework. However, it is a statement of fact that they are not there, not used and not in place at the moment. I spend every other week in the Chamber, busily telling people, “I have no role over that,” in terms of the code of conduct, for example.
On what you are requesting, Claire, I would have liked the provisions in the Good Friday agreement to have been faithfully implemented across the board, and that would have applied to these provisions as well. The fact they are not means that I have to deal with what is in place within the framework, the Northern Ireland Act, and our own Standing Orders, and I will faithfully deliver on those.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Alex Maskey: On one level, it could possibly help, because it would remove the issue. If you were to remove it, then you do not need to deal with any consequences. Gareth said earlier that we have identified a number of issues that could be impacted, such as the LCMs, but there are others we may not have detected yet. I suppose it could go some way towards solving it.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Lesley Hogg: We have really highlighted the problems; these are political solutions that are you are trying to identify. Many of these have been ongoing for a number of years. We have highlighted that there is an issue. There is no easy solution, but we are happy to continue to work with officials to see if we can come up with anything.
Dr McGrath: Mr Robinson, I would just add that former Speaker Hay wrote in 2009 that the tabling of a petition of concern is a serious and important procedural step that has the effect of raising the bar. From an Assembly perspective, you hope to avoid the law of unintended consequences with all of these. For example, you could imagine that making it easier for Members to withdraw a petition of concern could potentially increase the number tabled. Given that 116 petitions of concern were tabled in the 2011 to 2016 mandate, one in the 2016 to 2021 mandate and none in the last 18 months, the Committee will want to consider the law of unintended consequences.
Gavin Robinson
Q
Alex Maskey: First of all, as you know, the Speaker has the role of verifying or confirming whether a Bill is competent in the first instance, before it is introduced. Once it is introduced, I would refer that to the Human Rights Commission. The Assembly also has the right, which was exercised recently, to vote to make sure we do refer something; it is a bit of an additional belt-and-braces provision. The Assembly can vote to refer a Bill or a measure to the Human Rights Commission at the outset, so it would always be referred in the first instance to the legal team, who would look at it from a perspective of rights, as well as considering all other matters of competence. Of course, additionally, we then refer it to the Human Rights Commission. The provisions are there, and they are acted on in each and every case.
Mr Walker
Q
Alex Maskey: I certainly hope that anything that we do would lead to that outcome. As I said at our meeting, Minister, with the political will, we can resolve most of the matters, if not all of them. Unfortunately, occasionally we have not been able to resolve matters, including, as I said, when it came to an Opposition Bill passed a number of years ago; it was put forward by John McCallister. There was no cross-community agreement to enact a Standing Order to apply that. That might seem odd or unusual, and it probably is, but the fact of the matter is that we did not get an agreement.
At our meeting and in correspondence, we addressed the fact that the first item of business of an Assembly is electing the Speakers. With the six-week ruling, and the six-week period of delay envisaged in the Bill, theoretically, the Assembly could meet after six weeks, and if it could not be formed at that time or could not fill the offices, then it could close down for the next six weeks, but if we do not get a Speaker in place—if we do not have that agreement—we cannot even move to that point. With political agreement and common sense, you would imagine we could resolve these matters. We have only drawn attention to these matters on a cautionary basis because of our experiences; in the past, we have not even been able to pass a number of important matters on the basis of cross-community support.
Since taking up my post, I have routinely been on record reminding Members that we have a very important job to do, as guardians of the legislature, in holding the Executive to account. However, it is also by way of being our business to secure and try to maintain public confidence in the institutions. If we can do anything to maintain the sustainability of the institutions on the basis of the integrity of NDNA and previous agreements reached, I think we will be doing a good job. Anything that helps us to perform our duties in a way that maintains and builds public confidence, we need to embrace.
Mr Walker
Q
Alex Maskey: That is the conundrum that we have to face. I am absolutely certain that the very best way of conducting our business is by doing it ourselves and by the Assembly performing its duties on a mature basis. Unfortunately, on more than one occasion, that has not been able to happen on the basis that we would have liked, but that is politics. As you know, there are many issues that are quite divisive and polarising in our politics at times. I still would say that I have been very pleased, notwithstanding the very challenging difficulties that we have had to face in the past year and more, that the Assembly, for the most part, has performed its duties well and professionally and the level of debate and so on has been mature enough. There have been one or two breaches of good order and all the rest of that, but I think that, for the most part, the Assembly has come through the difficulties and trials pretty well. We have still a lot of work to do. Yes, I agree with that entirely, and I certainly want to work through the rest of this mandate on the basis that the Assembly parties are fully understanding of the need to build confidence among the general public by doing our work professionally and maturely.
Mr Walker
Q
“The Speaker and the three Deputy Speakers shall not sign a Petition.”
How do you interpret that? You expressed concern about being able to recruit Deputy Speakers. Can you give the Committee any further evidence as to that? Has that been a challenge? To what extent has the willingness of parties to put forward their Members as a Deputy Speaker been a challenge to date?
Alex Maskey: As I have said, no party at this moment in time can trigger a POC itself, because it does not have the 30 Members. Therefore, parties may be reluctant and there would be some little amount of chit-chat around the corridors—not that I have heard it recently. But when I was in the business of being involved in chit-chat around the corridors as a party activist—I do not operate on that basis now, of course—there would have been people thinking, “God, would you want to lose a Member”—people would describe it in those terms—“by putting them in as a Speaker if they are not able to sign a POC?” You also have some Members who would feel very passionate about particular issues and who might want to support a POC if one were to be deployed at some point in the future.
We are merely drawing attention to the fact that the Deputy Speakers in our Assembly function differently from how the Speakers in Westminster, for example, do, as I understand it. Our Deputy Speakers function as a Deputy Speaker when they are chairing a session; for the rest of the time, they actually operate as party political activists. It is only the Speaker in this case—in the Assembly—who would be prohibited, throughout the entire mandate, from signing any petition of concern; and that is as it should be, of course. I am just drawing that to your attention and that of the Committee today. It is just because we do not want to cause chill factors; we want to make sure we can draw on as wide a range of Members across the Assembly as possible, to make sure we have inclusive arrangements made, from the Speaker through to the Principal Deputy Speaker and the two Deputy Speakers.
Mr Walker
Q
Dr McGrath: I think that that self-evidently would be the case. It is also the case that uniquely in this mandate, and partially because of the reduction in the number of Members, no political party has the number of signatures required to table a petition of concern, so by definition, at the moment, a party requires the support of either independent Members or Members from another party to do that. It is the practice now—there have been no petitions of concern in the current mandate. I am not saying that the two are related, but I am saying that it is more difficult to see a scenario in future—obviously, without trying to forecast electoral outcomes—in which a party would have the required number of Members.
Mr Walker
Q
Dr McGrath: To revert to the issue that was originally raised by the Speaker, clearly the intention of the consideration period, as I understand it, is to allow a cooling-off period and room for manoeuvre among the political parties. It may well start off with that intention. However, there would be scenarios in which it could evidently be used to stymie progress on issues for which the petition of concern was not intended.
It is one thing to have the provision in the Act, but trying to implement it in Standing Orders is a different matter. Standing Orders have to be passed on a cross-community basis so there is no guarantee that just because this Bill requires Standing Orders to make provision for that, it will happen. That is a statement of fact on the basis of legislation, as Mr Speaker said previously, that the Assembly has passed requiring Standing Orders to make provision for, and that has not happened. In that situation, the Speaker will be required to rule on whatever is referred to as interim procedures. That will inevitably put the Speaker in a difficult position.
The Chair
Q
Alex Maskey: I just want to say thank you on behalf of the Assembly for giving us this opportunity. As I and my colleagues have said, we do not want to be over-cautious, but we feel obliged to draw attention to some of those issues that may lack a bit of clarity. That may help on one level, but if we do not have the political will then that could cause us some difficulties, purely from a procedural implications perspective.
We are not looking to see those situations arise again, but we want to make sure we have drawn some of these issues to your attention, given that we have experienced a number of these in the past and we do not want to have those matters resolved to create another unintended consequence or problem.
Other than that, we wish you well in your deliberations. As a Speaker and as officials, we will professionally and diligently put in place whatever comes our way as a result of the legislation, according to the will of the Assembly. Thank you.
The Chair
On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank our three witnesses very much indeed for the time they have spent with us. We are very grateful.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Written Statements
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Designated Settings: Indemnity Support (September extension)
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
Further to my written statement on 25 March 2021, I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the undertaking of a contingent liability. This relates to an extension of the designated settings indemnity support (DSIS), which offers targeted and time-limited state-backed indemnity arrangements to care homes registered, or intending to register, as “designated settings”, and which are unable to obtain sufficient insurance cover.
On 18 January 2021, the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment announced in a written ministerial statement, and accompanying departmental minute, provision of these temporary indemnity arrangements under the DSIS. The DSIS includes cover for clinical negligence, employer’s and public liability where a care provider seeking to become a designated setting is unable to secure sufficient commercial insurance, or where an existing provider has been operating without sufficient cover. Employer’s and public liability is covered under the new coronavirus temporary indemnity scheme; clinical negligence is covered by the clinical negligence scheme for trusts. The DSIS is supervised by DHSC and administered by NHS Resolution, and, to date, has proved to be an effective package of support to designated settings.
DSIS initially provided cover for designated settings until the end of March 2021 and was subsequently extended for a further three months until the end of June 2021. Following a further review of DSIS, it will now be extended until 30 September 2021, in order to maintain the current level of support for these vital settings. This extension will benefit current DSIS participants, as well as any additional settings who may wish to apply for the support and who meet the criteria for inclusion. We will review the progress of the support ahead of this end-date.
I regret that in this circumstance, due to the need to ensure that there are no gaps in DSIS cover after the current 30 June end-date, the normal 14 sitting days for consideration has not been possible. A departmental minute will be laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS130]
European Motor Insurance Directive (Vnuk)
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
On 21 February 2021, the Government announced they intended to remove the effects of the 2014 European Court of Justice’s ruling in the Vnuk case from GB law. The Government have been clear since the ruling in 2014 that they do not agree with it. The decision directed the unnecessary extension of the provisions requiring motor insurance to private land as well as a greater range of vehicles that potentially includes motorsports, agricultural machinery and light electric vehicles. This has led to excessive liabilities on the insurance industry, and to potential increases in motorists’ insurance premiums. Delivering on this commitment is a priority for the Government and we will continue to explore bringing forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill, which aims to deliver the necessary legislative change. The Government will follow passage of this Bill with interest.
Background
Vnuk is a 2014 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on the case of a Slovenian farmer—Mr Vnuk—who was knocked off his ladder by a reversing tractor trailer on a private farm in 2007.
The ruling directed that the compulsory motor insurance requirement must be extended to include vehicles being used on private land, as well as a greater range of vehicles—potentially including those used in motorsports, agricultural machinery and light electric vehicles (LEV).
This contrasts sharply with the scope of the domestic compulsory insurance requirement (in GB) under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA) which is limited to accidents on roads and other public places and has a narrower definition of “motor vehicle”.
Implementing Vnuk would have been costly, in the region of £2 billion (covering existing motorcars, existing motorcycles, existing business vehicles, motorsports and other business) according to the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD).
Focusing just on existing motorcars, GAD calculate that insurance policyholders could face an estimated additional cost of £1.227 billion if Vnuk was implemented—expressed as a potential increase in individual insurance premiums of c. £50 for 25 million consumers.
In order to remove the impact of the Vnuk decision from GB law, primary legislation is required and a slot to introduce this will be sought at the earliest possible opportunity.
[HCWS131]
HS2 Phase 2a Local Consultation: Government Response
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I am today publishing a Government response report as required under section 60(3) of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Act 2021. The report sets out the Government response to the issues raised in the HS2 phase 2a local consultation held between 1 February and 26 February 2021 and which were summarised in the consultation report published on 13 May 2021 and prepared by the independent research company, Ipsos MORI.
I am placing copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS132]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House has considered these draft regulations, which were laid in draft before this House on 27 May. If approved and made, these regulations will introduce fees for new permitted development rights that are currently, or will be, conditional on obtaining prior approval from the local planning authority. These permitted development rights relate to constructing additional storeys on existing dwelling houses, changing the use of commercial, business and service-class buildings to residential use and the development of university buildings.
I turn to the details of the regulations. A fee of £96 for prior approval is introduced for the enlargement of a dwelling house by construction of additional storeys made under class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. This fee reflects the resourcing impacts on local planning authorities in processing such applications, and it is the same as the fee for applications for prior approval for larger home extensions. This is less than the fee for a planning application—£206—had the permitted development right not been introduced.
A fee of £100 per dwelling house is introduced for prior approval for the change of use from commercial, business and service use, or class E, to residential use, or class C3, under class M(a) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. Responses to the consultation for this permitted development right indicated support for the introduction of a fee per dwelling house to help to meet the costs of local planning authorities. There was support for a higher fee, but we believe that a fee of £100 per dwelling house meets the right balance between encouraging development and meeting the costs of determining such applications.
Finally, a fee of £96 is introduced for prior approval for erection, extension or alteration of university buildings made under class M of Part 7 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. The introduction of a prior approval condition was a response to the concerns raised at consultation. The fee reflects the costs to local planning authorities in assessing these types of application and is the same level as fees for other applications for other non-residential prior approvals where a similarly limited number of additional matters are required to be considered. The development rights to which the fees relate have already been introduced. If these planning fees are not introduced, the cost to the local authority to process these applications would have to be funded, or would continue to be funded, by taxpayers.
We have announced ambitious reform of the planning system to support the delivery of more homes as well as key transport and infrastructure projects. The draft regulations that we are debating today reinforce our commitment to ensuring that local authorities have adequate resources to deliver a high-quality planning service. I commend the instrument to the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, is not with us today, so I will move straight on to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, today’s Committee consideration is about fees, not about the merits of permitted development rights. It is about whether local authorities receive an income commensurate with the need to encourage and ensure that the relevant properties are developed. On the basis of the evidence of the consultation exercise undertaken, I believe that the Government have struck the right balance, although I note that there may be dissenting voices, particularly to the effect that £96 might be too low a figure for a local authority to provide this service.
As the Minister said, these draft regulations will allow councils to collect fees for prior approval applications in relation to new permitted development rights, allowing class E commercial to residential conversions, the addition of extra storeys on top of existing buildings and, most significantly, for PDRs related to universities. I had expected the principal concern to be whether the £96 for universities fully reflects the possible developments, which could be considerably more complex and far-reaching than the limited addition of extra storeys on top of existing buildings. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could explain the Government’s thinking on this and the basis of the charge for universities for prior approval for a university building.
Of course, these regulations are part of the changes to local plan-making and methods of making developers and houseowners contribute to the infrastructure that supports their schemes, and can thus be seen in the context of the forthcoming planning Bill. The question whether these are reasonable sums to cover the proper resource for local authorities and planning departments has been well made and answered by my noble friend the Minister.
Permitted development rights since 2013 have had far-reaching benefits. Costs should naturally fall on the owner or developer, not the council tax payer. It is right that these categories of development should not have to go through the whole planning application system, and I only wish that, when I was Planning Minister, PDRs had been a key tool in the planning system armoury at that time.
The new planning Bill is intended to ensure that local plans provide more certainty over the type, scale and design of development permitted on different categories of land, and will no doubt have an impact on the charges made here. Fee structures will no doubt need to be further reviewed as part of the changes to planning policy. However, I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that these charges do not impact on or change local planning oversight and local authority responsibilities and powers as applicable to PD rights. For example, can he confirm for the record that the powers that local authorities retain to intervene about the aspect of the building, the effect on traffic, flooding and impact over, for example, an aerodrome within two kilometres—to name but a few—remain untouched by this measure? The rights to intervene are critical, not least in town centres, and with these rights continuing in place I hope the Committee will join my noble friend the Minister and approve these regulations.
Finally, on a related yet—I totally appreciate—separate issue, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could also update the Committee on the Government’s intention to introduce map-based and interactive local plans based on data standards and digital principles. At the start of this month, the Government announced funding of £1.1 million for a pathfinder programme involving 10 local authorities and council partnerships testing digital tools and data standards in a local plan preparation before more formal proposals are brought forward. I would be grateful for any further update that the Minister can provide, although I fully appreciate that this question goes beyond the scope of the regulations before us, which I support. In this context, I would therefore be happy if the Minister could write to me on the subject.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I believe that the fee of £96 is fair. Permitted development rights have an important role to play in the planning system. They provide a more streamlined planning process with greater certainty, while at the same time allowing for local consideration of key planning matters through a light-touch prior approval process. Permitted development rights can incentivise certain forms of development, providing developers with a greater degree of certainty within specific planning consents and limitations. Individual rights provide for a wide range of development and include measures to incentivise and speed up housing delivery. The 2021 regulations will expand the scope of existing permitted development in schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and, for the first time, even prisons.
A full impact assessment of the effect of these regulations is being prepared by the Government and will be published. I believe that the regulations will provide more housing, which the UK especially needs. Can the Minister tell us whether there will be more affordable social housing for teachers, nurses and doctors?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan—especially during Wimbledon and on the day of England’s critical game at the European Championship. It causes me to wonder whether the expansion of sporting facilities is encouraged at all by the new permitted development rights.
I rise mainly to speak in support of the regulations. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear and succinct explanation. I have an interest as the chair of the new House of Lords Built Environment Committee. We have today announced an inquiry into “Meeting the UK’s housing demand” and hope to hear from as many people as possible. Our first oral hearing is next Tuesday, 6 July, and subsequent ones are at 9.30 am on Tuesdays.
One strand of our work will be on skill shortages and assessing whether the professional and other skills required to meet housing demand—for example, in the construction, planning and design sectors—are being tackled adequately. One of the issues we face is a dearth of planning staff following pressure on local authority budgets, Covid and the need to consider and process development applications across the country, partly as a result of the changes that provide the context for today’s draft regulations.
I support my noble friend the Minister’s proposals to charge fees for these new areas of work. It is essential that planning departments have the capacity and professionalism to do a proper job. Planning fees are an important source of finance for councils seeking to provide a good and timely service. My only question is whether the fees are high enough. Take a proposal to add storeys to a home, terrace or block of flats. There may be quite a lot of factors to consider, such as light and design, and representations to process—for example, from those who live underneath the new developments. The Minister may like to comment on this and any plans he has to keep the fees under review.
I thank the Minister for the full explanation of the regulations in the paperwork that has been circulated and the impact assessment relating to the original order, which I found very interesting. I note from page 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum that another impact assessment is being prepared and submitted for independent assessment. Why is this not available now? The whole point of these assessments is to inform intelligent decision-making. It is virtually pointless ex post.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s planning overhaul represents a developers’ charter to remove powers from elected local representatives and hand them over to Whitehall-appointed boards of developers. I believe this legislation is a small part of that overhaul.
The instrument before the Committee introduces new application fees for permitted developments, as we have heard, such as projects to add additional storeys and convert shops to houses. While we can all accept that these charges must be part and parcel of the planning system, I still have huge concerns that these are enabling the Government’s decision to take away the ability of local communities to object formally to inappropriate developments. All the while, there is still nothing to solve the growing affordable housing crisis that our country faces.
I will focus on the specific provisions of this instrument. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister in three specific areas. First, on the question of commencement, the Minister will note that the provisions come into force on the 28th day after the day on which they are made. Can he explain the Government’s reason behind this? Have they taken steps to ensure that there is not a rush of applications immediately before the commencement?
Secondly, on the exact fees, it appears that two of the fees being introduced are £96 while a third is £100. Can the Minister explain this discrepancy? As other contributors have asked, is the Minister certain that they have been set at the right level? Will they adequately provide funds that local authorities need to deliver this important area of work? I add my voice to the request that they be kept under review.
Finally, on the broader issue of implementation, can the Minister confirm whether the department has estimated how many applications these fees will apply to and how much revenue will be generated as a result?
As I said, the Government’s planning overhaul is a developers’ charter. We can all see that this is only another part of their strategy to do away with the normal scrutiny and oversight provided by local authorities and communities. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Baroness will shortly be rewarded. I call the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. This has been an interesting and short debate. I am very keen to hear my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s deliberations from her work on the House of Lords Built Environment Committee. It is really important that we think about the steps we can take to increase the supply of housing but also ensure that we get the right built environment.
I will turn to some of the other contributions. My noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, all raised adequate resourcing and fees. The proposed fees are considered to meet the right balance between encouraging development and meeting the costs of determining such applications. The new fees introduced by these regulations have been considered as part of the full regulatory impact assessment for the permitted development rights legislation. That will be published in due course.
I am glad to assure noble Lords that we will continue to keep fee levels under review and maintain discussion with local planning authorities and users of the planning system. The change will come if it is indeed required.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned data standards and site selection. Data standards in local plans are key for increasing accessibility, transparency and improved decision-making in the planning process and wider planning sector. Local authorities will work with the support of MHCLG to develop and test data standards through the site selection process.
There has also been quite a bit of work on digital. The Housing Minister has announced a £1.1 million fund to test the use of digital tools and data standards across 10 local areas. This pathfinder programme will look at the digital transformation of local plans, which will increase community involvement and speed up the planning process.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, wanted to know whether, and be assured that, there would be adequate provision of affordable housing, in particular for key workers. First of all, there is the importance of additionality in permitted development rights. Some 72,000 new homes have been delivered under such rights in the five years to March 2020. Of course, there are plenty of opportunities for more affordable housing with the commitment to £11.5 billion as part of the current affordable homes programme, the largest investment in affordable housing in a decade.
I do not recognise the description of this as a developers’ charter, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, raised. Indeed, I assure my noble friend Lord Moynihan that local authorities can remove a permitted development right where they are justified to do so in line with government policy by making an Article 4 direction. We recently consulted on proposed amendments to national planning policy on the circumstances in which an Article 4 direction could be used to remove permitted development rights. Further announcements will be made in due course.
In conclusion, planning fees are a vital source of income for councils to ensure the delivery of a well-resourced, effective and efficient planning system that underpins housing delivery and economic growth. I firmly believe that these regulations will support local authorities to have the capacity to consider these applications, play their part in creating new and improved homes and local communities, and support the economic recovery and growth our country needs. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance, Young Carer Grants, Short-term Assistance and Winter Heating Assistance) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2021
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance, Young Carer Grants, Short-term Assistance and Winter Heating Assistance) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2021.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 17 May 2021 be approved, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it today. The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary legislative amendments in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, the draft order amends various pieces of social security and tax legislation in the United Kingdom as a consequence of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which I shall refer to as the 2018 Act, and regulations made under that Act. This order has been brought forward as a result of the close, continuing co-operation of the UK and Scottish Governments.
The 2018 Act gave the Scottish Government the authority to make legislation and to deliver social security powers devolved to them through the Scotland Act 2016. Section 31 of the 2018 Act allows the Scottish Government to introduce a payment to provide financial assistance for disabled people in Scotland, called disability assistance. Disability assistance will replace the three existing payments currently delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions: the disability living allowance, personal independence payments and the attendance allowance. Through these powers, the Scottish Government have legislated that, from July 2021, disability assistance for children and young people, to be known as the child disability payment, will start to replace the disability living allowance for children in Scotland and will operate in broadly the same way. This new form of assistance will be available to disabled children and young people up to the age of 18.
If passed today, the order will ensure equal treatment of individuals in receipt of the child disability payment and the disability living allowance for children with regard to the same specialist tax treatments and benefit disregards from the point of introduction. The changes made by this order are outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and therefore the UK Government are facilitating them through this order.
The Scottish Government have also developed the Accessible Vehicles and Equipment Scheme, which enables individuals in receipt of qualifying social security assistance to have that assistance paid directly to a provider of vehicles for disabled people. This order amends various pieces of legislation to ensure that people who are eligible for disability assistance are eligible for the same tax exemptions, or zero-rating in this case, as those in receipt of the mobility component of the two reserved benefits: the disability living allowance or personal independence payments.
In making these changes, the order also amends reserved social security legislation to ensure that the child disability payment is disregarded in the calculation of reserved income-related benefits, in the same way as the disability living allowance is disregarded. This, too, is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, this order has to be taken forward by the UK Government to facilitate the Scottish Government’s required changes. It will ensure that individuals in Scotland are not disadvantaged by devolution, thus meeting the principles set out in the Smith commission.
Lastly, the 2018 Act also gave the Scottish Government the power to introduce child winter heating assistance, young carer’s grants and short-term assistance. Amendments were made to the law of England, Wales and Scotland through a previous Scotland Act order, which disregarded these benefits as income or capital when determining an individual’s entitlement to reserved income-related benefits. This order therefore makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland in respect of assistance payable under Sections 28, 30 and 36 of the 2018 Act.
The UK and Scottish Governments have worked closely together to ensure that the two systems of social security operate effectively alongside each other, and that the required legislation that underpins them is delivered successfully for the people of Scotland. This order highlights the importance that the UK Government place on the effective functioning of devolution and the strength of the union.
I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for her clear explanation of the terms of this order and her openness in advance of today’s debate in making available to me any information that I needed in relation to it. I am grateful for that.
We do not oppose this order. It is necessary to make various provisions introduced by the Scottish Government under the 2018 Act work. There are no particular points that I wish to draw attention to in relation to the order. However, I want to make three general points.
First, the implementation of the social security powers under the 2018 Act in Scotland should be moving at a much faster pace. When the Scottish Government announced the Scottish child payment policy back in 2019, they said that 170,000 children could benefit, but the Scottish Government’s priority appears to be announcements, not delivery. As a result, families only started to receive their first payments more than 20 months after the SNP Government said that they would offer them.
The Scottish Welfare Fund should act as a lifeline to many. However, many third-sector organisations have mounting evidence that the fund is offering neither adequate nor accessible support, with best-practice models of delivery not always implemented. These concerns have been highlighted further during the pandemic. It is time for a full independent review of the Scottish Welfare Fund, examining its delivery with a focus on local authority administration costs, the standard and consistency of the service provided, and access to and promotion of the fund. A report late last year revealed that, in some local authorities, up to 69% of crisis grant applications had been rejected.
The devolution of some social security powers under the 2018 Act was supposed to create a more caring benefit system, yet the SNP has delayed on transferring the powers and is failing to use them properly to tackle poverty. Almost a third of Scottish children with a disabled family member are growing up in poverty, according to the Child Poverty Action Group. We have called for an additional £5 per week on top of the Scottish child payment for families with someone who has a disability in order to help to alleviate poverty. There were far too many people living in poverty before the pandemic, and there can be no doubt that the pandemic must have made things much worse.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should act harder and faster to tackle both in-work and out-of-work poverty. This should be an absolute priority of the Parliament. The SNP has not used the full powers available to it to tackle poverty and inequality. We need to shift from merely transitioning benefits to the Scottish Parliament and start reforming the eligibility and adequacy of benefits so that people across Scotland have enough income to live a life of proper dignity. It is the responsibility of both the Scottish and the UK Governments to work towards the eradication of poverty. We strongly condemn the welfare policies of the current Tory Government at Westminster, including the two-child cap and the potential end to the £20 uplift in universal credit, which exacerbate poverty.
As is clear, these are general points. As I have indicated already, we do not oppose the making of this order.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his contribution to the debate and for his support for the order.
The pace and delivery of welfare is a matter for the Scottish Government and outside the scope of this debate, as I know the noble and learned Lord will understand. Nor are we here to debate the benefits policy of the wider UK Government, which, again, is outside this statutory instrument, but it is DWP’s clear policy intent to disregard Scottish disability assistance in the calculation of means-tested benefits, in line with the Smith commission agreement. This instrument will effect that.
We recognise that divergence of policies of the UK Government and the Scottish Government was always going to be the outcome of devolving these powers. Making devolution work for our joint customers is of paramount importance. The UK Government will continue to work closely and constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure the safe and secure transfer of powers and individuals throughout the process.
This instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland and to maintain a functioning settlement for Scotland. On that basis, I commend the order.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.50 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Space Industry (Appeals) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Space Industry (Appeals) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations relating to the space industry are made under the powers conferred by the Space Industry Act 2018, which I will call the SIA. The contracting-out order is made under the powers conferred by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. There are four draft instruments before the Committee, each addressing a different aspect of the legal regime required to regulate commercial spaceflight from the UK. These instruments will apply to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as space is a reserved matter.
Regulatory functions for satellite licensing under the Outer Space Act 1986 are currently undertaken by the UK Space Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State, but because the space agency is also responsible for administering grants to stimulate market growth, in June 2020 the Secretary of State directed that those activities under the Outer Space Act 1986 and all activities under the SIA should be regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, the CAA. This is to avoid a potential conflict of interest for the UK Space Agency and follows the policy of successive Governments to separate safety regulation from sector promotion following the 1988 Piper Alpha disaster. To enact this direction, the contracting-out order will authorise the CAA to carry out regulatory and licensing activities under the Outer Space Act 1986 on the Secretary of State’s behalf, in addition to its responsibilities under the SIA.
An additional instrument will follow, using the negative resolution procedure. This is an employment relations SI that will enable the transfer of staff from the UK Space Agency to the CAA.
The CAA is a seasoned regulator with over 40 years’ experience regulating aerodromes, aircraft, security, the environment and the use of airspace. With its expertise and strong international reputation, the CAA has been a partner in the development of the Space Industry Regulations from the outset. Once stood up as the regulator, the CAA can begin accepting licence applications for spaceflight activities.
The CAA cannot yet commit to a precise timeframe for granting licences, especially for initial applications, but it is expected that applications will initially take between six and 12 months to process. Of course, as the industry develops and the regulator grows its expertise, this timeframe will reduce. The regulator will be in contact with applicants at every step so that this timing will not impede industry’s ambitions. I am aware that other spacefaring nations, such as the US, have shorter stated application times of, for example, 180 days. It should be noted, however, that this excludes the pre-application period, which can be two to five years ahead of any application being submitted.
The Space Industry Regulations are a result of a collaboration across government, building on existing space and aviation legislation and harnessing a range of regulatory, technical and legal expertise. The Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency and the CAA have worked together closely, with the support of the Health and Safety Executive and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, to develop these regulations.
The Space Industry Regulations make provisions to enable the licensing and regulation of spaceflight activities, the establishment of spaceports and the licensing of range-control service providers in the UK. These regulations are designed to enable UK launches from 2022 and will promote growth, innovation and sustainability while protecting public safety, security and the UK’s international relations.
The Space Industry Regulations provide transparency to prospective licence holders and wider stakeholders on the outcomes that are expected of licence holders, facilitating consistency, fairness and proper decision-making by the regulator. These regulations are augmented by detailed and practical guidance documents and the regulator’s licensing rules.
The regulations include provisions regarding eligibility, risk, training, security, debris mitigation, and insurance and liabilities. Insurance and liabilities were one of the key issues raised in your Lordships’ House and by industry stakeholders during the passage of the SIA, with key concerns about unlimited liability and the availability and cost of insurance to cover such unlimited liability. The Government have listened to these concerns and taken action to limit operator liability in all operator licences. Their policy intention is that all operator licences issued under the SIA will contain a limit of operator liability with respect to claims made under Sections 34 and 36 of the Act. Operators will therefore not face unlimited liability for actions carried out in compliance with the Act and licence conditions. The regulations contain the necessary provisions to implement this policy.
In line with the statutory guidance requirements of the SIA, the guidance material sets out the form and content of an assessment of environmental effects—an AEE—which is required to be submitted with every spaceport and launch operator licence application.
In order to ensure that accidents are investigated by a body independent of the CAA, the Spaceflight Activities (Investigation of Spaceflight Accidents) Regulations 2021 establish the space accident investigation authority and make provisions for how accident investigations will be carried out. Building on the long- established principles used to investigate aircraft accidents, these regulations are necessary to ensure that lessons are learned, safety is improved and further accidents are prevented.
The Space Industry (Appeals) Regulations 2021 add to the provisions in the SIA relating to appeals by specifying which decisions under the Space Industry Regulations are appealable. These regulations set out how a panel will be established and the process which the appeal panel and the parties to the appeal are to follow. They also set out the process that should be followed by the parties to the appeal, right from the initial application for permission to appeal all the way through to the decision that may be taken by the panel and the consequences for the parties.
To conclude, these regulations are a modern legal and regulatory framework that will enable the UK to launch commercial space flights. They create the conditions for accessing space from the UK, and, as I am sure that all noble Lords will agree, they will give us the opportunity to accelerate the growth of the UK space sector and demonstrate the UK’s maturity as a spacefaring nation.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the appearance on the Order Paper of these SIs as yet another clear signal that the Government are serious in their intent that Britain should be a leading player in the space sector, an ambition that I support. I do so with an important caveat: I question whether the SI procedure is fit for purpose in handling parliamentary oversight of this kind of legislation.
In a billet-doux the Minister sent to Members of the Committee a few days ago, she told us that she had mastered a 100-page brief in preparation for today’s session. We have before us four pieces of secondary legislation, which, with the Explanatory Memoranda, run to more than 200 pages. This debate is scheduled for one hour, and our interventions are limited to seven minutes. I will put a question that is above the pay grades of all of us here: is there not a case for legislation of this complexity to be handled by a Standing Committee of both Houses, which would be able to give full and informed consideration to the important issues before us today?
Space is indeed a new frontier and, as such, we will need to address a number of audiences and a number of concerns simultaneously if we are to go forward with confidence. That being so, is it realistic that this launch programme will be a reality by the Government’s target date of 2022—next year—which the Minister repeated again today? The amount of logistics, manpower and know-how required to launch a rocket simply does not happen overnight. There are still half a dozen spaceports under consideration. When will the first of these be operational?
The answer to that is contained in a positive Rubik’s cube of decision-making contained in these SIs, but it is all summed up in one word: “confidence”. We have to give the general public confidence that this space adventure is safe, both physically and environmentally. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, reminding us in an earlier debate that rockets are “controlled explosions”. The public will need to be confident that the CAA has the new expertise and the extra resources to carry out the oversight required to ensure that these operations are safe.
We have already seen how HS2 attracts opposition on environmental grounds. I recently saw a TV programme reporting from the highlands of Scotland, expressing concerns about how spaceport development would impact on areas of unique habitat and outstanding natural beauty. By their very nature, the spaceports are likely to be in such locations. It must be said, though, that in the locations already announced, other voices are arguing that the space industry offers the best prospect of attracting high-quality investment and jobs to those areas.
The Minister mentioned another part of the Rubik’s cube, which is sustaining investor confidence. I listened with care to what she had to say about insurance and liability for the investors and companies involved. Before the debate, I asked one such company about this and was told that it had put forward specific ideas to the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, calling for amendments to the Space Industry Act 2018 to give it the assurances it is looking for. In the meantime, if changes to Section 36 of the Act are not possible in the short term, guidance should make it clear that all granted licences will provide for a cap on liability. As I said, I will study carefully what the Minister said and see what the sector’s reaction will be as to whether the reassurances she has given are sufficient for it to attract the very large investment it will need.
Safety, security, environment and insurance are all live issues as we move forward. I understand that New Zealand, another island nation at a similar latitude away from the equator as ourselves, is already operational, with a small satellite capability in partnership with an American company, Rocket Lab. Have we had any exchanges with New Zealand about its experience of regulating in this area?
New technology is reducing the cost of access to space and demand is growing. This offers a huge opportunity to the UK as we already have a thriving space sector. I hope that we can look again at how we keep this fast-moving situation under proper parliamentary scrutiny. I look forward to us taking forward a project that will bring with it a wide range of benefits in related services and sustain our position as a leading space nation in the world.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, look at the sheer vastness of what is before us, all to regulate space. The clue is in the name: space is largely empty; that is why we call it space. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, counted more than 200 pages. When I put all four of these SIs together, I counted more than 500 pages, 90% of them to do with the powers of the regulators in extreme and precise detail: the appeals procedure, the make-up of the arbitration panels and all the rest of it. Do we really need this kind of prescriptive law to regulate the vastnesses of what Cardinal Newman called the “sidereal firmament”? Sure, you need some rules and agreements among countries. As we began to sail the high seas, we developed maritime laws and the law of the sea as we went along. A similar process should pertain as we sail the wide seas of space, but in this manner, with this level of detailed prescription, we are asking for unintended consequences.
Noble Lords may say, “Well, what if something goes wrong? What if there’s a crash and we need to work out what the insurance would be and who would be liable if a bit of satellite fell on some other country? We must have some regulatory framework”, but here is the thing: our common-law system is remarkably good at adapting to new technologies and hitherto unencountered situations. In fact, almost every new technology was accommodated in our growing legal system by the application of general principles, for example the general principle that, if you have a dangerous thing in your possession, there is a responsibility on you to keep it leashed. When mining began for the first time, like space exploration now, it was a situation not previously encountered by people who had to determine liability and responsibility—yet we coped.
I want briefly to quote Rylands v Fletcher, a case from 1868. Water from the defendant’s reservoir had flooded the mine shafts of the plaintiff. The judge—rather brilliantly, I think—said:
“We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.”
Those are the general principles that should govern satellites and the charting of space.
Regulators are constantly playing catch-up. They will never be as smart as the innovators. Governments will always be rushing to keep up, asking things such as, “How do we regulate clean meat, GM foods, 3D printing or AI?” or whatever the latest thing is. In doing so, they almost always get it wrong because they cannot foresee the situations that the innovators in the private sector are already dealing with. That is why this volume of precise, Civil Service-written regulation—I must say, I have not been here long but I can tell the difference between stuff that Ministers have decreed and stuff that the bureaucracy is just churning out regardless of who is in office—and this kind of legal act almost invites disproportionate and unintended consequences. How extraordinary that they should be pursuing us even as we blast off and leave our ancestral planet. We cast off the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God and we find that, even so, the clammy grip of the regulator drags us back into its orbit.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her homework and her explanation of these SIs. I always particularly like her style because there is a slight ironic tinge to everything she says, which always adds something to the explanation of rather technical SIs. I will not be as poetic or lyrical as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I am afraid, but I suggest that he needs immediately after this session to put down a fatal Motion against these SIs on the Floor of the House to move his position forward.
One of the fundamental things that I welcome here is the splitting of promotion and regulation. It is one thing that we have learned from government and administration. We start from a good basis.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I have got this wrong but, having read through the SIs, although the intention is for the Secretary of State to delegate powers to the Civil Aviation Authority, I could not see it named in the regulations. If that is the case—I may be wrong—why not? It seems to leave open the possibility that the Secretary of State could appoint anybody to this role. I know that consultations with the CAA have taken place, but it seems strange that this is not in the regulations. I may be wrong; maybe I read the wrong one.
The third-party limit clearly makes sense in terms of commercialisation, but nowhere are we given to understand what those financial limits are, what they are likely to be and what the residual public liability to the taxpayer is likely to be. I would be interested to understand from the Minister some of the mathematics or the potential risks to real money, rather than just the principle.
I do not think the Minister mentioned the definition of a “suitable person” who may hold a licence. Again, I look at this more broadly. A completely unrelated area where similar regulations have been introduced is the home parks industry, where there are notorious owners of mobile home parks. The Government have tried to bring in regulations about suitable persons, which I welcomed, but all that happens is that those companies nominate someone who has a reasonable background, so the people who manage the businesses are those who would have done so anyway. How robust does the Minister see the process being in such an important industry, which includes technologies that are inherently dangerous? I would be interested to understand that.
More broadly on space strategy, how is the £400 million purchase of OneWeb proceeding and do the Government still see that as an alternative to Galileo? A quick answer on that would be very useful. I understand that the special adviser to the Government who suggested that purchase, a Mr Cummings, has left. I wonder what the situation and the intention are in respect of OneWeb, which I understand is co-owned with an Indian company.
I very much welcome our still being a member of the important European Space Agency, it not being an EU institution. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how our work on the Copernicus project is proceeding and whether British companies are able to access supply chains.
On the overall strategy that these SIs should fit into, my brief research indicated that the previous space strategy was in 2015. Space quite rightly got a mention in the integrated review, but it was very brief. Our expenditure and forecasts are still well below those of France and Italy, as other European nations we might compare ourselves with, so what are we really trying to do in this sector?
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, I was privileged in my role as president of the CBI to chair the B7 summit, which fed in to the G7. One area we discussed was digital, and one of our participants said, “Thank God for digital in this pandemic”. What was also said clearly was that the more digitisation we have, the more vulnerable we get, particularly with regard to cybersecurity. Yes, we hear the cliched term of space being the final frontier; well, that frontier is here right now, with us. Not only is this fantastic news but it makes us more vulnerable. These regulations are therefore absolutely necessary, in the right proportion.
I am proud to be an honorary group captain serving in 601 Squadron of the Royal Air Force, and we now have our space command, which will be vital for our defence capabilities. The fantastic integrated review of our global diplomatic and defence strategies that was just published, with a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, spoke in great detail about our space capabilities. Our Armed Forces may be small in numbers compared with those of the United States, China or India, but our service personnel are the finest of the finest, and our capabilities are respected worldwide. That goes very much for space as well.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Space Industry Regulations 2021 states clearly that the purpose of the instrument is
“to enable the licensing and regulation of spaceflight activities, spaceports and range control services in the UK”
and that the regulations are designed to enable
“launches by the early 2020s and promote growth, innovation and sustainability whilst protecting public safety, security and the UK’s international relations.”
Once these regulations are enforced, they will work along- side the 2018 Act, as the Minister said, and the Outer Space Act 1986. They will also work alongside other legislation such as on aviation, and on health and safety.
In addition, these provisions speak specifically about the market for small satellites, where the UK is strong and where we have a disadvantage because of our existing launch business models. The demand for launching small satellites is forecast to be greater than the launch supply over the next decade. At the moment, UK small satellite providers must launch on rockets designed for much larger satellites, as these have traditionally been the main customers for launch services. That creates a dependency where the UK small satellite providers have fewer choices.
Creating the regulatory conditions to allow launch to take place in the UK will open up a new, competitive market in the global space economy. This will have lots of benefits: it will feed into our national space strategy, enable UK launch options, and reduce cost and delays, which will be terrific. Domestic access to space would also provide the UK’s scientific community —this is absolutely terrific—with lots of research and development in exploration, discovery and the exploitation of revolutionary spaceflight technologies. The statistic given is that with public investment in the space industry returning an average of £6 in benefits for every £1 invested, the UK strategy of investing in and enabling industrial capabilities will deliver strong value for money, space sector market growth and spillover benefits for the wider UK economy for years to come.
There was also a publication in March from the Department for Transport, the business department, the Civil Aviation Authority and the UK Space Agency, titled Unlocking Commercial Spaceflight for the UK. The foreword written by the Ministers starts off:
“It was once said that space was the final frontier”.
It refers to how in 1961, 60 years ago,
“Yuri Gagarin became the first human to travel in space”.
It continues:
“The traditional space sector is changing and today we move … to making space”
more accessible to all people on this planet and
“to making that final frontier a new region for growth and prosperity for the whole of the United Kingdom.”
It talks about being at
“the dawn of an exhilarating new era that will forever change our relationship with space to the benefit of all”
and an “unparalleled opportunity for growth”. I agree with all that, because space is fundamental to the UK. It enables the defence and security of our nation, and empowers our society. It can help in every way in our daily lives—in telecommunications, for example—and we are terrific at innovation and enterprise. Our universities are the best in the world, along with those in the United States of America.
Building on our small satellite industry and the thriving commercial spaceflight market are fantastic opportunities. The Government have an ambitious target to grow the UK’s share of the global market to 10% by 2030. The cornerstones of this are these regulations. Euroconsult, a leading satellite consulting firm, estimates that 1,250 satellites will be launched annually this decade, with 70% of them for commercial purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned OneWeb, which is a great example of collaboration. The satellites are built at a OneWeb-Airbus joint facility in Florida, which can produce two satellites a day. The launch rollout of the satellites is facilitated by a French company, Arianespace, using Russian-made Soyuz rockets, and the company has announced plans to enter the Indian market by 2022. This is all globalisation in action.
BT and OneWeb have signed a deal to explore ways to provide broadband internet to remote areas of the UK. This is fantastic news. It will improve the speed at which people can access data in remote areas. Will the Government commit to 100% broadband coverage, not the 85% they said in the spending review in November? It should be 100%, and this OneWeb and BT collaboration should enable it to happen.
It has been amazing: OneWeb has launched its most recent batch of 36 satellites into low-earth orbit, bringing the company one step closer to starting commercial activities by the end of the year. Of course, OneWeb is a collaboration between the British Government and my friend Sunil Mittal of Bharti Airtel, one of India’s largest communications companies. More than 70% of rural Indians do not have access to the internet. That problem is really worrisome. This will help, including in digital banking.
The cornerstone of our ambition is the legal and regulatory framework we have created. The UK space sector will strengthen our national capabilities, create high-skilled jobs and drive economic growth. This framework will support safe and sustainable activities in the unique environment of space while ensuring that public safety is at the heart of the regulatory approach. As long as it is flexible, it will help the UK to realise its space ambitions.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. Like my noble friend Lord McNally, I am concerned that such lengthy SIs receive only seven-minute speeches, which inevitably undermines attempts at scrutiny.
I fear that my questions will be rather more down to earth than those of one or two of the previous speakers. On page 65 of the Space Industry Regulations, Regulation 95 says:
“A spaceflight operator must ensure that the spaceport or other place used for the operator’s spaceflight activities is fit for those activities.”
That is a very loose statement and is in itself pretty meaningless. Can the Minister explain what that will mean in practice?
Regulation 98 refers to the loading of dangerous goods on to a launch vehicle and the need for that to be specifically permitted by licence. The term “dangerous goods” in relation to spaceflight opens in my mind a worrying range of possibilities, so can the Minister explain what this would cover and how it will be dealt with as part of the licensing process?
Chapter 6 of Part 11 refers to security in relation to US technology. From the Explanatory Memorandum, I see that we have signed an agreement with the US on that country’s participation in space launches from the UK. This is probably a very good idea, but can the Minister tell us more? How extensive is that agreement? When was it signed? Have we signed or are we planning to sign agreements with any other countries? We remain a member of the European Space Agency, so are there plans to sign agreements with any European countries?
Section 4 of the Space Industry Act allows for exemptions to the need for a licence. This involves an element of recognition of authorisations and approvals issued by other countries. How will this be managed? Will it be done on an ad hoc basis, with one exemption for one potential launch, or will it be systematic on the basis of a country-to-country agreement, as referred to in the agreement with the US?
The CAA has been appointed as the single regulatory body for all aspects of commercial spaceflight. My noble friend Lord McNally asked about capacity issues. The Minister will know that I have said several times before that the CAA seems to be the maid-of-all-work on aviation, from regulating private aviation to drones, bringing home stranded passengers and now spaceflight. There has been criticism lately that, as an organisation, it is simply overstretched and has not been able to concentrate as it needs to on issues such as private aircraft safety or ensuring that airlines refund passengers appropriately when flights are cancelled. Can the Minister assure us that it will be given the additional funding it will need?
I have concerns about leaving the CAA solely in charge. For instance, licensing will require consideration of issues of national security, so what is the role of the security services, and will they have an automatic input into CAA decisions in this respect? After all, satellites raise highly technical and complex security issues.
The licensing of spaceports involves the evaluation of risks and environmental impact. This is a very crowded island, and even sparsely populated areas are not far from densely populated ones, so the potential risks are greater. Will there be an obligation on the CAA to consult local authorities and environmental bodies before granting a licence? The latter are of course different in the four nations of the UK, and planning legislation varies significantly.
As my noble friend Lord McNally said, HS2 has proved how controversial infrastructure in unspoiled rural areas can be. Protestors at spaceports would pose a particular hazard. How will the CAA work with and consult local police forces? Can the Minister spell out for us how devolution is taken into account in these regulations? The siting of spaceports, whether in north Wales, Cornwall, Scotland or wherever else, will be disruptive and, therefore, must be done with the grain of local opinion.
I recall that, during debates on the Space Industry Act, it emerged that, prior to a launch, local roads near the site would have to be closed for several days for security reasons. That would be disruptive to the local economy and services, especially in remote rural areas, where the closure of one road may lead to an additional round trip of 20 miles or more—so we must work closely with local people for this to work well.
Obviously, so-called return operators also have to be licensed, and the return might well be into the sea. UK coastal waters are also very crowded, so what consultation must the CAA undertake with the coastguard and other maritime agencies before granting a licence? I realise that the Minister will be unable to answer all my questions in the time that she has been allotted, but I am sure she will agree to write to me about those she cannot tackle now.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the instruments debated today intend to support the establishment of a UK spaceflight programme, and I am sure the whole House will want to wish it the best of luck. The legislation enables the licensing and regulation of spaceports, control services and the flights. While I will come later to the specific provisions of these instruments, it would be helpful first to consider the wider intent of the programme.
For almost 70 years, the UK Government have sought to facilitate satellites and space travel through various civil programmes, but this one, enabled by these regulations, differs from them all. While most of its predecessors aimed, at least in part, to satisfy curiosity and accrue human knowledge, the primary mission of this programme is economic growth. Given the prospect of commercial space travel, the Government are right to consider how the UK can benefit.
However, my concerns relate to a lack of ambition—first, to use the economic growth for transformational purposes and, secondly, for what space travel can achieve beyond economic growth. On the first point, the government support for future industries should seek to support new high-quality jobs across the UK, but there is no strategy behind this programme for doing exactly that. The space programme will, we hope, generate high-skilled jobs and economic prosperity, and the effect of both should be felt across the UK and utilised to address regional inequalities.
On top of this, no steps seem to have been taken to ensure that the UK’s space industry benefits the wider supply chain in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm how the Government will ensure that any prosperity resulting from the programme is felt across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom? Can she also confirm what steps the Government will take to ensure that UK steel is used in the development of the UK’s space industry?
On the second point, although we all recognise that the UK space industry can bring enormous economic benefits to the UK, I hope the Minister will agree that the UK’s role in space travel should not be limited to strict commercial interests only. Space travel and exploration can allow research to take place for endless purposes, such as biomedical and climate advancements. Can the Minister detail how the UK space industry will support scientific research?
There are several areas of the regulations on which I would appreciate clarification from the Minister. As she explained, the first three instruments implement the Space Industry Act; I will refer to each briefly.
The first instrument deals with appeals. Much of it is focused on appeal panels and their functions. Can the Minister confirm the total estimated budget for these activities? Also, can she confirm whether the appeals procedure has been developed with any representatives from the space industry?
The second instrument, which is the most substantive, assigns the Civil Aviation Authority as the regulator. Can the Minister confirm whether it will have any additional budget? Further, do the licensing arrangements reflect similar ones in countries with similar space industries?
The third instrument relates to accident investigation. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm why it has not been introduced as primary legislation, given its broad scope and provisions.
Finally, on the contracting order, can the Minister explain to the Committee whether any preparations have taken place to assign these functions prior to the commencement of the legislation?
As I said, I wish the UK satellite programme the best of luck. We all want it to succeed but, given the incredible potential for the industry, I hope that the Minister will recognise the enormous possibilities. Prosperity generated must be used to support other industries and benefit regions that are often ignored. Further, the Government must be alert to opportunities to use space travel for research and scientific purposes. I hope that the Minister can provide clarification on my questions and assure the Committee of the Government’s wider intentions for the industry.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, as always, all the briefing in the world will not cover all the questions asked by noble Lords. Nor will I be able to make some—at least one—of the commitments asked of me without getting into deep trouble. That means that I will write with a number of answers to the questions asked today.
Our aim here is simple, even if the regulations are a little lengthy and complex. We want to be the first country in Europe to offer small-scale satellite manufacturers a direct end-to-end route to launch from Europe, building on the UK’s leading small satellite industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, it is absolutely critical that we are part of this industry. He reminded noble Lords of the huge opportunities ahead; I welcome his support.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked specifically how the regulations would support our scientific research communities. The answer is simple: they will provide domestic access to space for the UK’s scientific community, for whom space is an invaluable research environment, opening up new opportunities for exploration and discovery, and it could accelerate the exploitation of revolutionary future spaceflight technologies.
The noble Lord also asked about investment in the regions and whether the industry would benefit the whole of the UK. The UK Space Agency has awarded substantial grants across the UK. This will help the UK’s growing spaceflight capabilities. Such investment includes £31.5 million to help establish vertical launch services from Scotland, comprising £2.5 million to Highlands and Islands Enterprise to develop Space Hub Sutherland, £7.35 million as part of £20 million central and local government funding to support horizontal launch by Virgin Orbit from Spaceport Cornwall, and up to £1.3 million to develop business plans for small satellite launch and sub-orbital flights from airports in Machrihanish, Snowdonia and Cornwall.
These places are across the UK. The funding will support new, quality jobs in all these regions. I point out to the noble Lord that we will not be directing the supply chain as to what it can and cannot buy from whom, because I think we all recognise that this is a very technologically advanced industry, but of course we will work with the sector as it develops to make sure that we have the skills, the technology and the materials so that if we are able to provide those domestically, we will.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether we really will have our first commercial launch by 2022. I really hope so. I admit that this timeframe is a little ambitious, but with this level of investment and these regulations I think we are laying a very solid foundation. As I have mentioned, space is a reserved matter, so the regulations apply to the entire UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that we needed a space strategy, while the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, felt that there was a lack of ambition and direction from the Government. I can assure all noble Lords that this is absolutely not the case. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government as a whole are determined to develop an ambitious national space strategy by the summer. This will ensure that the UK can establish itself as a global player and seize these economic opportunities.
Back down to earth, so to speak, and on the CAA as regulator, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that the CAA is specified in Part 2 of the Space Industry Regulations, but I will clarify that in writing. I welcome the intervention from my noble friend Lord Hannan, who I see has printed off all 500 pages of the regulations et cetera. I am not entirely sure that he has read them all, so I hope he will use that paper as scrap if he does intend to use them in future.
It is important that we focus on the role of the CAA, which is a hugely capable regulator. It is gearing up for its role as the regulator. It will utilise its existing space capability and transfer nine or 10 staff from the UK Space Agency and take on new staff, including specialist engineers. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked, as she does with regularity, about resourcing for the Civil Aviation Authority. I reassure her that it will have a dedicated budget for regulating space flight. It has the capacity and some of the skills already, and it will be able to build on those.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked when the CAA would undertake responsibilities under the contracting-out order. The functions under that order will not be transferred to the CAA until it comes into force, which I believe will be later in July, but, of course, practical preparations have already been made at the CAA.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about whether UK licences reflect similar licences in other countries with similar space industries—absolutely. These regulations have been developed alongside a careful examination of international licensing regimes all over the world, including New Zealand, so that we make sure we are as up to date as, and hopefully even more up to date than, the competitors. I have already mentioned that we expect the licensing process to begin very soon. We expect engagement from the operators with the CAA to make sure that the process is as smooth as possible.
Here comes my mea culpa of the day. I said in my opening remarks that it will take six to 12 months for an application to be processed. I misspoke: it is six to 18 months. The timeframe will depend on a number of factors, such as whether the mission is bespoke or novel, how mature and experienced the operators are and the nature and completeness of the information provided. So many things will make up these applications, so some will be simpler than others.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also raised some queries regarding the costs, particularly relating to appeals. We are not expecting many appeals, if any, in the next few years. Those costs will be picked up with normal departmental allocations. I would like to reassure him that the whole appeals process has been developed alongside representation from the space industry, as indeed have all these statutory instruments. I assure all noble Lords that we had a detailed and lengthy conversation with the industry and undertook a formal consultation as well. Noble Lords will also be interested to know that we recently published the outcome of the consultation into the draft environmental objectives—something that I know is important to all of your Lordships.
I suspect I will probably write in more detail on insurance and liabilities, because this issue was subject to a lot of consideration over the passage of the Bill and as we built up to these regulations. Absolutely key to the Government is that we want to tailor the insurance required to the risk and diverse range of UK launch activities expected. The Government have committed to carrying out a review of liabilities and insurance in 2021. This will include the issues raised by respondents in the consultation. Work is under way, and more information will be available in due course.
On accidents, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked why the accident investigation SI had not been introduced as primary legislation. We feel that it is appropriate. When noble Lords discussed the Space Industry Act in 2018, it was very much presented as a framework Bill. We knew that the regulations coming out of that would potentially be complex, and the House was happy with that at the time. Although it is a new industry, of course, as a nation we are very good at accident investigation.
I fear I am slightly running out of time, so I just want to make sure I have covered the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about planning permissions and other consents. The CAA will provide the operating licence, but many other consents, considerations and planning permissions, et cetera, will be needed. Therefore, to have a successful spaceport, operators will need to work with the local authority to make sure that everything is done to protect the environment and the local community. It will be really critical that they have the support of the local community. I fear that the Chair has started the countdown to lift-off, so I commend these instruments.
Space Industry Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Space Industry Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Spaceflight Activities (Investigation of Spaceflight Accidents) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Spaceflight Activities (Investigation of Spaceflight Accidents) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to Space) Order 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to Space) Order 2021.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, that concludes the Grand Committee. I remind noble Lords to sanitise their desks and chairs.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings when in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Gambling Reform
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report produced by NERA Economic Consulting for the Peers for Gambling Reform group Economic Assessment of Selected House of Lords Gambling Reforms, published on 26 May, what assessment they have made of the positive economic effects of implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry (HL Paper 79, Session 2019–21).
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice-chair of Peers for Gambling Reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we are carefully considering the report by NERA Economic Consulting, along with the large amount of evidence we have received in connection with our review. There are clearly difficulties in making precise predictions, but we welcome this analysis. We aim to publish a White Paper by the end of the year, setting out our conclusions and the next steps for the gambling review.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
[Inaudible]—the IPPR estimates for the cost of problem gambling are between £270 million and £1.17 billion per annum, but there is evidence to suggest these are underestimates. Extrapolating problem gambling costs from studies in other jurisdictions suggests it could be as much as £6.5 billion—far beyond the £3 billion in annual tax contributions provided by the gambling industry. Will the Government commit to researching the costs of problem gambling, so we can determine whether the contributions from the gambling industry are offset by the damage caused by it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise; we slightly missed the beginning of the right reverend Prelate’s comments, in the Chamber. If I have missed anything, I will write to him, but I think I got the essence of his question. We are of course looking at the economic costs. I do not recognise the £6.5 billion figure that the right reverend Prelate cites, but he is aware that one of the complexities of looking at this is the comorbidity between gambling and other forms of harm, which we need to take into consideration.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, as set out in the register. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that, when her department develops these crucial reforms to the gambling industry, she will ensure that this review is not just evidence-based but grounded on a wide range of opinion that takes into account both the NERA report and the most recent research from a variety of organisations and groups, including the industry itself?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that we are considering a very wide range of evidence. Our call for evidence received over 16,000 submissions from a wide range of organisations—from charities, academics and the gambling industry, but also broadcasters, local government and sports organisations. We are considering it all carefully.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, in their response to the Select Committee report, the Government said,
“The Committee is also right to say that further progress to make gambling safer does not need to wait for the outcome of the Act Review.”
Can the noble Baroness update the House on what action has been taken so far?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be breaching the Lord Speaker’s guidance if I were to give the noble Lord the full list, but his point is important. We have not waited for the end of the review to take action where it is needed. To give a couple of examples, in the past 18 months, we have banned gambling on credit cards and introduced new rules to limit the intensity of online slot games.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the public health policies applied to tobacco and alcohol addiction are not being applied to gambling. The Government can easily modify Section 328 of the Gambling Act 2005 to control gambling advertising. Can the Minister please explain why the gambling industry and addiction are treated differently?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We cannot prejudge the outcome of the Gambling Act review, but the essence of a public health response, which looks at the products, players and environment, are included within it.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for Gambling Reform. The NERA report shows that measures to reduce gambling harm, such as banning gambling sponsorship of football, would also help the UK economy. Such sponsorship links football and gambling in the minds of children. Just one edition of the BBC’s Match of the Day magazine, advertised as for “footy-mad youngsters”, had 52 gambling logos. Does the Minister think this is acceptable?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right to raise these issues. As he knows, we are looking at this as part of the review of the Act. We have seen the conclusions from the NERA report on sports sponsorship, but we need to test them with sports bodies themselves.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
Reform is needed sooner rather than later, if we are to get to grips with gambling-related harms. Can the Minister tell us when the Government expect to publish the review findings and associated legislation, and also whether loot boxes, which are currently unregulated, will be drawn into a system of regulation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the noble Lord’s second point, he will be aware that our call for evidence on loot boxes closed on 22 November. We had over 30,000 responses; we are reviewing that evidence and will set out our response in the coming months. I cannot give the noble Lord an idea of timing for legislation, but we will be publishing our response to the Gambling Act consultation later this year, and we also intend to publish a White Paper.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I refer to my interest on the register, as the chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. My noble friend will be aware that there are positive economic benefits from betting shops in market towns and on high streets. Are the Government looking particularly at how to balance the contribution that these shops make, in employing local people and to the local economy, while safeguarding the health and welfare of those who gamble?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend puts it very well. We are trying to balance the harm that gambling can cause in certain instances, while looking also at the economic impact—including in market towns.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the problems of juvenile gambling are changing. Seaside arcades are being overtaken by online gambling, and there is a threat it can soon become an addiction that destroys lives. The Government have a duty to protect young people from destroying their future, particularly during lockdown. Does the Minister agree with me that targeted advertising to vulnerable people is one of the main drivers? Will the Government make this one of the priorities for reform?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right, and we have made it a priority. He will be pleased to know that the biggest category of responses to the consultation was in relation to protecting children. He will be aware that we recently held consultations on the appeal of gambling adverts to children and vulnerable people in particular.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
When my noble friend Lord Foster and I were elected to another place on the same night in 1992, I suspect neither of us imagined we would come across so many lives devastated by gambling. I switched on the TV today at 9.30 am, not to a programme but to a betting advert. Can we have a watershed, so those adverts are not shown on TV before, say, 9 pm?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The aim of the current regulation around gambling advertising focuses particularly on making sure that adverts are not attractive to children and vulnerable people, but, as I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, that is being consulted on at the moment.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
Does the Minister agree that gambling destroys families, both their income and their lives?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Gambling can destroy families. Our aim with the Gambling Act review is to make sure that the majority of gamblers, whose lives are not destroyed as a result, can continue to gamble safely, but we protect vulnerable people from the harm the noble Lord talks about.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question.
Mortgages: EWS1 Form
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to help leaseholders who are unable to sell their flats due to mortgage providers insisting on an EWS1 form despite the guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
We will continue to challenge industry on inappropriate use of EWS1 forms. We have asked lenders to publish data, so that home owners can see how the guidance is being applied, as well as the impact of the process on mortgage applications. Data from one major lender suggests that an EWS1 form already exists for 50% of mortgage applications where one is requested. We are working with industry to ensure this picture improves.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the problem is that mortgage providers are insisting on a form that is not necessary, against the guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. People cannot sell their homes because of the actions of overzealous financial institutions, and buyers cannot get mortgages. Can the Minister say more? Has he spoken to UK Finance to sort this issue out? Sadly, for me, this is another example of woeful failure by the Government—all promise and no delivery. Again and again, home buyers have been let down. Issues of fire safety, building safety, poor construction and financial failure are not going away. The Minister will be brought back here, again and again, until the Government finally take some action.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have had repeated engagement with both UK Finance and also the Building Societies Association on this matter. We are seeing a picture that is troublesome but is continuing to improve, bit by bit. We have taken a number of measures to ensure that we encourage lenders to take a more proportionate approach.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Has my noble friend read Inside Housing for April? It reports that buildings are being issued with a succession of different EWS ratings after a sale has taken place. How can inspectors sign off forms, expressed to be valid for five years, but change them later to the disadvantage of the purchaser?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend raises an important issue about the inconsistency of the application of EWS1 forms by professionals. I point out that we are working with the British Standards Institution to produce a publicly available specification, known as PAS 9980, which is a code of practice designed to ensure greater consistency in these assessments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
What discussions have the Minister or his officials had with the Financial Conduct Authority regarding lenders’ obligations to treat customers fairly in relation to cladding? In particular, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that leaseholders confronted with an adverse EWS1 rating, emerging during the time of a fixed-rate mortgage, are able to roll over to a new fixed rate, rather than being forced into a standard variable rate at the end of their fixed term?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point out that the EWS1 form is not a safety certificate and nor is it a statutory or government document; it has been developed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors along with others. But we continue to have dialogue with the banks and building societies to ensure that they act in a proportionate and sensible way, and we continue to raise issues from time to time, as needed, with the Financial Conduct Authority.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I declare an interest as a former councillor in Southwark. The Minister is using lots of words such as “challenging this”, “working with so and so” and “taking a number of measures”, but have the Government actually made a simple statement, saying to the mortgage or finance companies that this is not necessary before giving money to people who want to move house?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have been working very hard to ensure that there is clear guidance about when such a form is necessary. In certain instances, there is deemed to be sufficient life-safety risk that an EWS1 form is required. The issue at hand is to ensure that lenders take a proportionate approach, and that is best achieved through dialogue.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this whole issue is an appalling scandal affecting several million innocent victims, for which developers, building owners and government are responsible, not them. More than 600,000 people in England are currently living in high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding, and there are more than 2 million mortgage prisoners, unable to move because of cladding issues. Why are the Government continuing to inflict massive distress and anxiety through the financially crippling costs of remediation works, which these leaseholders should not have to pay? Why are the Government refusing to offer up-front funding for those leaseholders, off-setting it by future recovery from those who are actually at fault?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I think we are straying a little away from the original Question, which was about external wall systems and the need for a certificate to ensure that lenders have the information they need to lend. As I said in answer to the previous question, for 50% of those who make mortgage applications, an EWS1 form is in place, and we continue to take a number of measures and steps to make the provision of an EWS1 form easier.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, EWS1 requirements have become an overreaction to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, particularly their application to multi-occupancy blocks and buildings below 18 metres. Fear of being sued has limited the availability of required professional assessors, the amount of insurance the insurance industry is willing to provide to the professionals involved, and financial organisations’ willingness to lend. It has ultimately killed the market in leases. Will the Government consider effectively reducing and rationalising the requirements of EWS1 and providing insurance cover for the professionals involved?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend will be pleased to know that we have announced our intention to provide a scheme that enables professionals who carry out EWS1 to have sufficient professional indemnity insurance cover. We are also engaging with the Building Societies Association, UK Finance and the major banks so that they look at other forms: for instance, an updated fire risk assessment or, for buildings constructed after 2018—post Grenfell—sign-off from a building control inspector. There are lenders that have led the way on this by taking a more proportionate approach in not always requiring an EWS1 certificate.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that updated guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors means that leaseholders will no longer need a form to sell their homes, but they do. He says that the EWS1 is not a government formal legal requirement, but mortgage lenders continue to insist on the form. In the end, the only reason all this has happened is because of government policies. When will the Government take responsibility for the leaseholders trapped in homes they cannot sell or remortgage? Has the Minister noticed that the media are now running with this story? Because of grassroots cladding and leaseholders’ groups, there is huge public interest: beyond Inside Housing, we have had Radio 4 and Channel 4, and all sorts of newspapers. We even had Rebecca Long Bailey on GB News—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Sorry. You get the gist: you have a problem.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that there is a problem and we are taking the steps required to ensure that where an EWS1 form is requested, it is easier to get the professional to carry it out, but also encouraging the banks to look at other documentation as an alternative—a proxy—to show that the buildings are safe. It is important that we go ahead and identify those buildings whose external wall systems require remediation.
Lord Etherton (CB) [V]
In November last year, the Government issued a statement recognising that the number of fire engineers qualified to provide these certificates, at 300 people, was woefully inadequate. They said that they would provide finance to fund 2,000 further qualified people within six months and ensure adequate sources of professional indemnity insurance. How many additional people have been funded by the Government to provide the certificate required, and precisely what further insurance has now been, or will be, made available in the market or elsewhere for these other people?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, that is quite right: we have committed to a £700,000 funding scheme to train up to 2,000 surveyors. That has already begun, and I will write to the noble Lord with the precise number that have been trained up to this point. We have also announced a bespoke insurance model to ensure that professionals have access to professional indemnity insurance cover. Details will be published in due course.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
At the heart of this is a very simple question, which I do not believe the Minster has actually answered: what action do the Government intend to take in the event that mortgage lenders continue to insist on this form being obtained for buildings that do not actually need one, according to the RICS criteria, with sellers finding themselves in a classic Catch-22 situation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that there may still be an outstanding problem. Where the building is outside the scope of the RICS guidelines and lenders are still insisting on the form, we ask that sellers take that up with RICS in the first instance. But I point out that 80% of lenders have adopted the RICS guidance formally, so people who are purchasing properties have a choice in the market to go to lenders that will follow that guidance.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Hospital Waiting Lists
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the time needed for waiting lists for hospital treatment to reduce to the levels they stood at on 1 March 2020; and what plans they have regularly to publish data on waiting times for each (1) medical speciality, and (2) geographical region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the horrible dividend of this awful pandemic has been the impact on the wider healthcare service. That is, I am afraid, what epidemics do, but we recognised the threat from the beginning and have worked hard to keep open essential NHS services. We have financed the biggest surge in healthcare spending in NHS history, including £1 billion this year to tackle head on the waiting lists and diagnostic backlog so that we can get back as soon as possible.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, that was an interesting statement but it did not answer any of the Question, which is: what is the Government’s estimate of the time needed to get waiting lists back to the state of a year ago and, secondly, what plans do they have to regularly publish data on waiting times for each medical speciality and geographical region? That is the question; would the Minister like to answer?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, waiting lists are published throughout the NHS and I would be very happy to write to my noble friend with details of the web locations for that data. We are working on the forecasts at the moment. It is not possible to forecast precisely when we can back to where we were, but I reassure my noble friend that a huge amount of work is going on to get there as quickly as possible, including 1.8 million diagnostic tests and treatment for 1.1 million patients since April 2021.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
Even if we get back to where we were in March last year, it will be a status quo in which all the key targets have been missed. When will the Government get back to meeting the targets that they inherited in 2010 with the Liberal Democrats? They have presided over a gradual but disastrous deterioration in overall performance.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there has been an enormous pandemic, which has, of course, had a huge impact on the healthcare system. During the pandemic, the financial support for the NHS—as well as the system support—has been huge and had a huge impact. We are looking at a backlog and working hard to get through it, but noble Lords should be in no doubt that we are thoroughly committed to getting back to full operational capacity.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, around 10 million people across the UK are affected by arthritis, and the widespread impact of rheumatology conditions costs the NHS over £10 billion a year. The recent British Society of Rheumatology report, Rheumatology Workforce: A Crisis in Numbers, lays bare the shortage of all multidisciplinary staff, including the consultants, nurse specialists and physiotherapists who are needed to deliver the NICE treatment guidelines. This shortage of staff and funding is already impacting severely on rheumatology waiting lists. Can the Minister say how this funding and workforce gap can be addressed with immediate effect? If he does not have the figures and answer to hand, please can he write to me?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness points very well to exactly the kind of challenge that we face at the moment. She is entirely right that conditions such as arthritis and rheumatology require complex combinations and collaboration between many different staff, as well as the application of new and effective treatments and therapies. That is exactly where we are working hard to catch up. I will go back to the apartment, dig out any statistics I can and write to her accordingly.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, waiting lists were too long pre the pandemic and there are now some 6 million people awaiting treatment of one kind or another, many of them in a lot of pain and discomfort. The National Health Service has learned a lot during the pandemic. Will the Minister publish how he intends to speed up the treatment that these people need? Can he also advise whether he routinely uses his private email with his contacts?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the publication of NHS plans around the catch-up is happening on a regular basis, and there will indeed be further communication from the NHS on this. On the use of private email, I reassure noble Lords that I have read and signed the ministerial code and I seek to uphold it in everything I do.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
Specialist surgical hubs have been demonstrated as an effective way of dealing with surgery and would be particularly helpful in dealing with the backlog of cases. Can the Minister say what plans there are for developing specialist surgical hubs, as the Royal College of Surgeons has advocated?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Surgical hubs are exactly the kind of interesting and progressive medical developments that we need to embrace to get through the backlog; in fact, that kind of specialism creates a huge amount of efficiency for the system and a better service for patients. We are working hard to understand how we can use them more effectively, and I would be glad to write to my noble friend with any details we have on the progress that we are making.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the Royal College of Radiologists tells us that 62,000 patients were waiting six weeks or more for a CT or MRI scan, and there may be as many as 45,000 missed cancer diagnoses. There are terrible shortages of skilled staff, fewer scanners than the majority of comparable countries in the OECD—we have half the number in France and a third of the number in Germany—and about a third of our scanners are obsolete or nearing obsoletion. Given the huge waiting list catch-up that the NHS faces, these diagnostic facilities are absolutely vital. Will the Government provide the necessary investment to address this urgent challenge—and in what timescale?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that diagnostics is one area where this country needs to make further investment. In the 2020 spending review, we ring-fenced £325 million of capital spending to support NHS diagnostics; the funding will be spent on new equipment, digitising NHS imaging and the pathology networks. New capacity is also coming through the new community diagnostic hubs and pathology and imaging networks. This work is critical, and we are working hard to make sure that it is effective.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, data from four major studies shows that disadvantaged groups have faced the greatest disruption to medical care during the pandemic. How are the Government ensuring that these health inequalities are dealt with in reducing the NHS backlog, and what targets have been set to deal with this issue?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that the pandemic has illustrated the severe health inequalities that exist across the country as well as the need to address them. The resilience of our health system depends on addressing those who can create the biggest demands on it. There is both a preventive agenda and an agenda for getting through to the communities, to communicate effectively that they can find the treatment they need in their local authority. The Help Us Help You advertising campaign is particularly targeted at the disadvantaged to encourage them to come forward for diagnosis and treatment.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the original Question requested a breakdown of geographical regions for waiting lists. Workforce shortages will be a continuing problem, and not just for catching up on the waiting lists. Will the Minister recognise the link between training facilities in regions where there are shortages and the ability to fill those vacancies? He will be much more successful in catching up with waiting lists if he pays greater attention to training places, regions and availability.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely take on board the noble Baroness’s advice. When it comes to recruitment, it is right that local engagement with local education has to be the way forward. I can report that the recruitment efforts and marketing campaign that we have put in place to recruit 50,000 new nurses, more GPs and more staff across the healthcare system are working extremely well. There is a renewed interest in careers in health—that is one good dividend of this awful pandemic.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s £1 billion elective recovery fund is most welcome. Will the Minister support this sum being made available every year until we see light at the end of the tunnel? Can he encourage health authorities to redouble their efforts to get the 40 million people in the UK who are overweight to return to a normal weight and thereby begin to release resources to treat more urgent cases, such as cancer patients?
Lord Bethell (Con)
On the elective recovery fund, I cannot make that commitment at the Dispatch Box but I reassure my noble friend that we are in it for the long haul and we recognise that this will be a major project needing major resources. When it comes to the health of the nation, the obesity strategy is a cross-departmental and energetic programme that tackles the issues that my noble friend is concerned about. He is entirely right that the costs of our healthcare system are predetermined by the overall health of the nation, and that is why we encourage people to eat well and lead healthy lives.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allotted for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Climate Change
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the Climate Change Committee’s 2021 Progress Report to Parliament, published on 24 June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
Over the past three decades, we have driven down emissions by 44%, the fastest reduction of any G7 country, and set some of the most ambitious targets in the world for the future. Our forthcoming strategies on heat and buildings, hydrogen, transport and comprehensive net zero will address many of the changes in policy that the Climate Change Committee is calling for, and we will respond formally to the CCC report by 15 October.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee report rightly praised the climate progress in the past that the Minister has referred to—but the past is the past and the committee was scathing about the Government’s plans to meet future targets. So how will the Government practically now save our nation’s previously good and hard-won reputation and retain our credibility as president of COP 26? A destination is useless without a route to get there.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is of course quite right, and we do have a route to get there. We will be publishing a number of sector strategies, as I mentioned in my opening Answer, including the transport decarbonisation plan and the heat and buildings strategy, which will illustrate to the noble Lord exactly how we will get to the destination that he refers to.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it has been reported that over £400,000 was donated to the Conservative Party by firms that subsequently obtained licences to explore North Sea oil and gas. How does the continued extraction of fossil fuel square with the Government’s policy of carbon-neutral energy when hydrogen gas and biogas are capable of coming onstream?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness should read the Climate Change Committee report, which itself recognises the ongoing demand for oil and natural gas, including in all scenarios for how the UK will meet its target for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
I declare my interests as recorded in the register. The Climate Change Committee has been saying for the past decade that there is a gap between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality in actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions. This year the chief executive, Chris Stark, said that
“progress is illusory. Government strategy has been late and what has come has almost all been too little.”
In this context, what action will the Government take, and when, on aviation and dietary change, as recommended by the Climate Change Committee?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in my earlier answer, the noble Lord will have to be a little bit patient and wait for the sector strategies that are coming out, which will help to address his point—but I do not accept that we have not done anything. We have taken action on transport with a £5 billion package and we have spent £3 billion on buildings and £1 billion on carbon capture, et cetera, et cetera. So we have done a lot, but I totally accept that we have much to do.
Lord Oates (LD)
Can the Minister assure the House that at the very least no decision to approve the Cambo heavy crude field, or any other oil and gas field in UK jurisdiction, will be taken without subjecting it to the test of whether it is compatible with the UK’s legally binding net-zero commitment?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, the report itself recognises that there is ongoing demand for oil and gas, including in all scenarios for how we meet net zero. We have worked closely with the sector and across government to agree a North Sea transition deal, delivering the skills, innovation and infrastructure required to decarbonise North Sea oil and gas production.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. The Climate Change Committee report, as the Minister will know, was explicit about the need for all government policies to be subject to a net-zero test, yet we have before the House at the moment a skills Bill—and skills will be crucial to the green jobs of the future—that makes no mention whatever of our net-zero targets. So will the Minister undertake to have discussions with his colleagues at the Department for Education about supporting the amendments to the Bill that I am tabling to remedy this serious omission?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I cannot promise the noble Baroness that we will support her amendments; I will need to look at them first. But we are doing a lot on skills. For example, the green homes grant included tens of millions of pounds that we spent on grants to encourage providers to provide the training that will be required to undertake many of the green improvements that we all want to see.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
The Climate Change Committee has called out the Government for the scale of the yawning gap that exists between government rhetoric and the Government’s lack of decarbonisation realities. Can the Minister confirm that the missing net-zero strategy will set detailed timelines for how each element of each missing policy will start to deliver decarbonisation with the required urgency, and then ensure that adaptation to climate change is properly integrated into that plan?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, the strategies will provide some of the detail that the noble Lord is looking for. We will set out a detailed road map of exactly how we will meet our net-zero targets, as he suggests.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, surveys suggest that public engagement should focus on deepening public attitudes towards climate change, not just by increasing knowledge of the science of climate change but by connecting the public to their values, a sense of identity and a cultural worldview. What plans do the Government have to deepen this meaningful public engagement?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. Achieving our net-zero target will be a shared endeavour, requiring action from everyone across society. We will set out our approach to public engagement in the net-zero strategy. For many years the Government have been funding and running public workshops and deliberative dialogues, and the noble Baroness will be aware that, ahead of COP 26, we launched the Together for Our Planet campaign to further raise awareness.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee has declared:
“The UK does not yet have a vision for successful adaptation to climate change, nor measurable targets to assess progress.”
Can we expect such a plan, and when?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I cannot give the noble Lord precise dates, but we are committed to publishing the strategy and plans that I mentioned earlier, which will be out later this year. We are currently finalising them within government. So I ask the noble Lord to be a little bit patient and wait for those documents.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following the publication of the committee’s report, the Independent quoted a government spokesperson saying that
“any suggestion we have been slow to deliver climate action is widely off the mark.”
Does that dismissive approach to a report from an independent and highly respected committee, chaired of course by a former Tory Minister, reflect the way in which the Government are going to approach the formal response that the Minister told us would arrive by 15 October?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand why the noble Baroness wants us to go further and faster, but I remind her that we have already driven down emissions by 44%, which is the fastest reduction of any G7 country, and that we have set some of the most ambitious targets in the world for the future. So, while I am sure she is going to push us to go further, I think we have made good progress so far.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, this issue clearly has added importance as we are hosting COP 26. How we set our targets and the metrics that we use are vital. Do we take into account the impact of technical innovation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Over the past three decades, as I have said, we have reduced our emissions by 44%. We will continue with policy engagement. We regularly review the frame- works that incentivise the further deployment of new technology. I can give the noble Lord an excellent example in the form of the UK electricity market framework.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. How is it logical or consistent with the Government’s carbon-footprint ambitions to transport meat all the way from Australia to the UK, especially given that our farmers provide a high-quality product?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord of course makes an important point about worldwide emissions and our overall carbon footprint. We have been at the forefront of measuring the emissions associated with our global carbon footprint every year. Defra publishes statistics to account for emissions generated overseas in the production of goods and services consumed here in the UK. The latest statistics show that our overall carbon footprint decreased by around 26% between 1997 and 2018, while our territorial emissions fell by 38% over the same period.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Security of Ministers’ Offices and Communications
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The former Secretary of State used his private email account for work, which jeopardises security, accountability and transparency. Did the Permanent Secretary know and what action was taken? How many other Members, including in this House, use private emails? Will all these emails now be copied in to the department’s secure archive and retrieval system? Finally, how many people had access to the CCTV and were they security cleared?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, on private emails, government guidance is that official devices, email accounts and communication applications should be used for communicating classified information. Other forms of electronic communication may be used in the course of conducting government business. Each Minister is responsible for ensuring that government information is handled in a secure way. The specific quantitative points the noble Baroness raised I cannot respond to at this point. But, in answer to another of the noble Baroness’s questions, the official information held in private email accounts is subject to FoI.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the government guidance seems to be not entirely clear. When Ministers are using private emails for official business, does this mean that their officials, including their own private offices and Permanent Secretaries, have access to these or are they outside the regard of civil servants? Can we be sure that CCTV is securely held? Are private contractors engaged in this? Is the technology—hardware and software—also secure or is some of it procured from, for example, China?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness opposite for not answering the question on CCTV, which was a lapsus memoriae—we are not supposed to use Latin, but it was. As I understand it, the Department of Health is looking into the specifics here. It constitutes a leak and is a serious matter with security implications. I can tell the House that our understanding is that this is certainly not a covert camera, nor is there a general policy of such cameras across Whitehall. As far as the question of emails is concerned, Ministers will have informal conversations from time to time in person or remotely, but significant contact relating to government business from such discussions should be, and is, passed back to officials. That would be in line with the relevant guidance on information handling and security. The Cabinet Office has previously published guidance on how information is held for the purposes of access to information. We obviously review this from time to time. I would expect all Ministers to seek to conform to the guidance.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Does my noble friend share my concern—indeed, great surprise—that the former Secretary of State for Health, who was in post for some three years, was apparently unaware of the CCTV camera that was recording in his office all that time?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment on the circumstances. The Department of Health inquiry, I would imagine, would look into all these matters, including who was and should be responsible for making the Secretary of State aware, if he was not aware, of this device.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the use by Ministers of private means of communication is dangerous on all sorts of grounds, and Ministers need good advice about that. Following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is there a review of ministerial private use of the internet, so that departments can identify which parts of such correspondence are subject to FOI so that they can deal with FOI requests?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is guidance. Obviously, guidance, as the noble Lord with his great experience will know, is reviewed from time to time. That is also the case in relation to FOI, on which I have already commented. The Cabinet Office responded to 92% of FOI requests within 20 working days. As to the boundaries, Ministers are also parliamentarians—MPs and Peers. There are distinctions between official classified information and the day-to-day management of a Minister’s life. One needs to be aware in office of those barriers and those responsibilities. I take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, with 5G and the internet of things, CCTV cameras become much more than just a camera. They can store data, record conversations, compromise passports, identify phone numbers et cetera. Thousands of pieces of Chinese Hikvision equipment are already installed across the country and connected to our networks. They will all be enabled by 5G. They sit in many offices and corridors, and everything that they see, whether it is on a desk or people going by, can be recorded and monitored. I ask the Minister whether any of these Hikvision cameras has been fitted anywhere on the Parliamentary Estate, as was originally the plan. Or were plans altered after my warning of the dangers, on the Floor of this House, on 18 October 2018?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as a Minister, I cannot comment on matters on the Parliamentary Estate, but I understand that the Lord Speaker has recently written to colleagues. This is a security breach—I repeat what I said earlier. DHSC is running an investigation, which will be done with support from the government security group and will take into account all the considerations that the noble Lord has mentioned.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, having been both a private secretary and a Minister in my time, I had always thought that the private offices were there to protect and assist Ministers. Does my noble friend find it odd that this does not seem to have applied in the office of the Secretary of State for Health?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. I have referred to the different bounds and responsibilities that take place within the normal life of a Minister. I am not going to comment on what may or may not have gone on within the Department of Health, not because it is not my responsibility to answer on behalf of the Government but because those matters are currently being investigated.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, if the person with the former Secretary of State had been a would-be terrorist, some would have a very different attitude to the CCTV in the department. There will always have to be a balance between privacy and security, but the ministerial statement says that there are “robust safeguards” in place around the security of Ministers. You could have fooled me. Will the investigation try to find whether those in charge of the CCTV sought to tell the Minister that he was risking being blackmailed? On the use of private emails between Matt Hancock and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will there be a full- scale investigation into their use to ensure that they are available for a future public inquiry on the pandemic—particularly if they involve government contracts? Will the Information Commissioner be invited to investigate?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in the first part of her question, the noble Baroness followed on slightly from earlier questions. There are issues of clarity, and Ministers should understand what is being done. My view is that the Government Security Group is obviously responsible for existing departments in securing Ministers’ security across Whitehall, and that work continues. As for the use of private machines for emails, I have referred to that, and they are subject to FoI.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]
My Lords, I make no comment on Matthew Hancock, but what happened to him raises questions. Is the recent filming of the Secretary of State for Health in his office part of a systematic intrusion into ministerial offices? Is it appropriate to have cameras in the offices of a Secretary of State or, indeed, any other Minister? It is quite possible that highly classified documents might be photographed. What happens to the recordings? Are they erased? If they are, what method of security is there to ensure that they are erased? The recent sale to the Sun is evidence that not all is as it should be for the security of these recordings. Are there bugging devices as well as cameras located in ministerial offices? Could that explain why there are so many leaks from all sorts of government departments—senior, junior or wherever? Might that indicate that there are a lot of recording devices all over the place? The mind boggles about where all this could end up.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is meant to be a short question.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend reflects a concern that has been expressed across the House about the potential security implications of such devices being in ministerial offices, the capture and use of such material and how wide it might be. That has been commented on by a number of noble Lords. I am sure that those responsible for the investigation, which is being supported by the Government Security Group, will take those points into account.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Social Care Reform
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, in last week’s very powerful debate on social care, noble Lords from across the House made it clear that we cannot build a better future for our country after Covid-19 without transforming social care, but instead of a firm date for the Prime Minister’s clear plan, we had the usual reassurances from the Minister that it was still absolutely under way, we would see some social care foundations in integrated care systems under the NHS and care Bill but that it would still be the “end of the year” before the Prime Minister reveals his clear plan to all.
Over these nearly two wasted years we have had delays and broken promises. Almost 42,000 care home residents have died from Covid-19, 2 million people have applied for support but had their request refused, tens of thousands have had to sell their home to pay for care, millions of families have hit breaking point and staff have been appallingly let down. Even after all the horrors of this pandemic, nine out of 10 councils say that they face care budget cuts this year.
While the Government dither and cancel key meetings and the Prime Minister blocks various funding options, the social care funding crisis deepens. Now we see in the Daily Telegraph that the new Secretary of State considers that we are completely at the wrong stage of Parliament to launch a new social care strategy. What is going on?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell)
My Lords, the commitment to publishing a review of social care is absolutely heartfelt. We have delivered on Brexit and the vaccines, and we will deliver on social care. The Prime Minister has made it crystal clear that that will be done by the end of the year; that commitment remains in place. It will require enormous financial commitment by the whole nation at a time when our finances as a nation are extremely stretched. Therefore, it is entirely right that very careful consideration is given to it. It will also involve a very large amount of engagement with other parties and the relevant stakeholders. Again, this is not something that has been rushed. We have just been through the most awful pandemic; it is not possible to do a review of this generational nature at the same time as fighting this awful disease, but we will be true to our commitments and deliver the plan as promised.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, in last Thursday’s debate on social care and carers, the Minister said
“a plan for reform absolutely is under way. We have before us the building of foundations, which will be laid in the social care measures in the health and care Bill, which will support us in working together”.—[Official Report, 24/6/2021; col. 447.]
Arising from that, is it planned to publish a White Paper or any other consultation document or, as the Minister’s speech implied, will the reforms be published as part of the health and social care Bill without any wider consultation? Given his answer just now to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, will parliamentarians be ask to make decisions on the health and social care Bill without seeing the details of the future social care reforms?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, new legislation will increase integration between health and social care by removing barriers to data-sharing, enabling joint decision-making and putting more power and autonomy into local systems. The noble Baroness is entirely right on that. The Bill has been published and the noble Baroness is very welcome to engage in some of the engagement sessions that I have had on it already. I should be glad to run more, if that would be helpful to her. A White Paper and a public consultation are not planned.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, press reports suggest that the Prime Minister is in favour of including in social care reform the Dilnot commission recommendations that are now a decade old. In doing so, he could bring into force Sections 15 and 16 of the Care Act 2014, which this Parliament passed seven years ago. Will the Government now consider doing exactly that to enable a cap on care costs to be implemented rapidly?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are extremely respectful of the Dilnot commission report and the recommendations in it, particularly those highlighted by my noble friend on Sections 15 and 16. It is one of many proposals that we will look at very carefully. We cannot make a commitment to anyone in particular at this stage but, as I said to the noble Baroness, we will put forward a full plan by the end of the year and will remain true to that commitment.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
Can the Minister assure the House that any proposals on the funding of social care will ensure that working-age disabled people who use care services can access the support that they need to live a full and independent life in the community and that the funding will be sufficient to ensure that they no longer have to pay for it, avoiding inequitable and unfair financial hardship?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I hear the noble Baroness loud and clear. Indeed, the needs and priorities of those with disability and the role of care for disability and the emphasis on care in the community are things that we hear loud and clear. I am not in a position to make any commitments on finances standing at the Dispatch Box at the moment, but the noble Baroness’s points are heard loud and clearly, and I would be glad to take them back to the department.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it would be better for the state to enable homeowners to insure against the potentially catastrophic risk of social care, rather than diverting billions of pounds desperately needed to pay for the care system for those unable to pay for themselves, instead using those funds to subsidise people, like most Members of your Lordships’ House, who want to pass on to our heirs homes worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds? How would that be levelling up?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the point made by my noble friend is entirely thoughtful and persuasive. Indeed, there may well be a role for insurance rather than any other mechanism, and it will be one of the options that those who define the policy will look at extremely carefully. The point that he makes about the desire of homeowners to pass on their homes to future generations is completely understandable and human, and one that will take into close consideration.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lady Campbell’s question, will the Minister commit to mentioning working-age disabled adults every time social care reform is discussed? The needs of older people living in care homes are important, of course, but that is an easier focus for improvement. The real challenge is to improve care and support for disabled adults living in their own homes, including people with learning disabilities and autistic people.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely aware of the point the noble Baroness is making. A very large proportion of those in care are not elderly at all but the young and adult disabled who need some care for some condition, whether physical or mental. Their needs are paramount in these reforms. We will not forget the people the noble Baroness describes; the financial arrangements for supporting them are one of the things we absolutely want to take on in these reforms.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, as well as declaring that he had a clear plan to fix the crisis in social care, Mr Johnson stressed in his infamous Downing Street speech of July 2019 that he was the Prime Minister of the whole United Kingdom. When the social care plan is finally brought forward, what guarantees can the Minister give to demonstrate that Mr Johnson’s Government value the social care needs of the people of Northern Ireland every bit as highly as those of patients residing in England?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an entirely fair point. The needs of those who reside in Northern Ireland are paramount in our minds. I would be very glad to meet the noble Lord and discuss how their views and needs can be best incorporated in the policies we are developing.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that public opinion has shifted, and that the public are now prepared to pay more to ensure that the elderly and vulnerable are properly looked after? Will the Government look at other countries’ attempts to deal with this tricky problem in terms of financial commitment? Japan has a surcharge for people over a certain age—I believe it is between 40 and 45 —and Germany has long had a solidarity tax to pay for particular hypothecated items. Will they at least look at this before the autumn spending review?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that we are looking at foreign parallels. The examples she gives are extremely instructive and thoughtful. I cannot speak for certain on where the public are on this, but I share her sentiments; I think the pandemic has demonstrated that the public are more connected with and thinking more about those in care than ever before in our nation’s history. It is exactly the right moment in terms of public sentiment to address some of these issues. The generosity of spirit towards the elderly living in care could not have been higher than it was during the pandemic. In that matter, I completely agree with the noble Baroness.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying how much these Benches identify with the words the Government have issued about the horrifying treatment of Chris Whitty, our Chief Medical Officer. It was completely shocking and disgraceful. For a truly amazing public servant to be treated like this is unacceptable at any level.
I thank the Minister for presenting the Statement and echo the words of my right honourable friend John Ashworth yesterday in welcoming the new Secretary of State to his position. It was pleasing to see the new Secretary of State at St Thomas’ Hospital yesterday; I hope it is the first of many visits to our inspirational and dedicated NHS and social care staff. I hope the Minister’s new boss will be more receptive than the previous one and make arrangements for them to receive a fair pay rise, and not the real-terms pay cut that is currently pencilled in.
Yesterday the Secretary of State let it be known that the 19 July reopening will, in effect, go ahead. He told the news that there is “no going back” and that lifting the restrictions will be “irreversible”. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that many across your Lordships’ House will give a collective and noble eye- roll at these words. Like many here—and unlike the Secretary of State—we have responded to a lot of these Statements in the last 15 months. We heard that there was “nothing in the data” to suggest that 21 June could not go ahead. Noble Lords will remember that children returned to school for one day before the January lockdown and the words “It will all be over by Christmas.” Some time last spring, I think the words “We will send it packing in 12 weeks” were used.
The context this time is that there has been a rise of 84,000 cases in the past week—an increase of 61%. Yesterday saw the highest case rate since January. If these trends continue, we could hit 35,000 to 45,000 cases a day by 19 July. We know that this variant means fewer hospitalisations and fatalities, but it also means that young people will become ill and some will have long Covid. It will again mean disruption to our schools and our youngsters’ learning and socialisation. When will we see a review of the arrangements in schools?
We also all know that this is a race between the vaccine and the infection, but I fear it will not be won by the vaccine in the next three weeks, so if we are looking at possibly 200,000 people infected with Covid on 19 July, the Minister needs to tell us what impact that will have on the road map out of restrictions. Can he confirm whether “irreversible” means the Government are now ruling out restrictions this winter? Have they abandoned the plan that the previous Secretary of State and officials were drawing up for that?
The Secretary of State has promised to give the NHS everything it needs to get through the backlog, so will the hospital discharge and support funding be extended beyond this September, or will trusts have to make cuts instead? We have already had some discussion about the backlog today; for example, when will the NHS again guarantee that 95% of patients will start treatment within 18 weeks of referral? How long is it likely to be until we can reach those sorts of targets again? When will the Government give primary care the resources to meet the challenge of the hidden waiting list of over 7 million patient referrals that we would have expected since March 2020?
Given the pressures on primary care, is it still the Secretary of State’s plan to press ahead with the GP data transfer? Frankly, if this department cannot keep its own CCTV footage secure, how does the Minister expect it to keep our personal data secure? I think that is a legitimate question.
Given the pressures across the whole healthcare system, will the Government now abandon the ill-thought-out top-down reorganisation of the NHS that the previous Secretary of State was about to embark on?
Finally, I have raised with the Minister the importance of the Nolan principles which must guide the ethics and behaviour of us all, particularly those in government. The Good Law Project today published emails which used the noble Lord’s private address. Transparency is the word I am looking for here. The spotlight has been turned on the Minister in recent days, including a formal complaint to the Lords commissioners about the issuing of passes.
The Minister might do well to consider a couple of things: actually referring himself to the commissioners about that matter, if there is a chance he may have acted outside the rules, and—he has had to deal with this question several times and is very robust about it—making his emails and communications transparent and explaining them. He is sure that he has done nothing outside those rules; he would therefore be wise to be transparent about that. It is not the original scandal that gets people in the most trouble—it is the attempted cover-up, or the chance that there might be one. Transparency is the best advice I can give the Minister today.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo on behalf of these Benches the concerns about the treatment of Professor Chris Whitty. It is totally unacceptable, and it is good news that the police are now investigating this.
Just now, in reply to my question on the Urgent Question, the Minister said that the health and social care Bill has been published. Over the last few minutes I have been searching the web, but I cannot find it— can he help me any further?
Yesterday’s Statement from the new Secretary of State struck an interesting new note. The department is clearly no longer going to be led by data but by dates. Yesterday, 22,868 new cases of Covid were reported. This time last year, when lockdown was finally lifted, daily cases were under 1,000. Even with the high level of vaccinations, this is causing illness and pressures on the NHS—even if it is a different kind of pressure to that of a year ago. On Sunday, Andrew Marr reported on his programme that his own experience of catching Covid had been difficult. He said that, while he had not needed to go to hospital, he was more ill than he had ever imagined possible, and it was not an asymptomatic experience. In the light of this and the reports of growing numbers of people living with long Covid, can the Minister say why data will now clearly not factor into the decisions about 19 July?
On these Benches, we believe that we need to learn to live with this disease, but unlike the Statement from the new Secretary of State, we do not believe that this is just about vaccination, important though that is. This week, Israel has found that, despite early and comprehensive levels of vaccination, the delta variant is ripping through its communities. We have argued since February 2020 that controlling outbreaks is vital. Can I ask the Minister about the provision of test, trace and isolate arrangements moving forward? Specifically, have local directors of public health been given access to emergency funding for the provision of surge testing and tracing and vaccination in their communities? When will the pilots for increased support for those needing to self-isolate be published? We still believe that people should be paid their wages if asked to self-isolate. As that number is considerably fewer than six months ago, it would be not only cheaper for the Treasury but a much more effective way of ensuring that the spread of the virus is reduced.
Usually the Minister agrees with me on the importance of test, trace and isolate, even if we perhaps disagree on how that should be funded and supported. Can he respond to the concerns of the doctors and scientists who are appalled with today’s proposals that company directors will be able to temporarily leave quarantine for business meetings? People are still furious that the Prime Minister delayed adding India to the red list, with the resultant rapid spread of the more transmissible and more serious delta variant. As Professor Christina Pagel says:
“luckily elites don’t get or transmit covid.”
Stephen Reicher, the eminent behavioural scientist, said he was horrified by the
“scandalous misuse of science as a cover for political decisions … which is putting us all at risk.”
When commenting on the DCMS report published on Friday, he said:
“The headlines and the political response isn’t just an exaggeration, they directly contradict what the report says. It warns that the research wasn’t designed to draw any conclusions about the effects of events on transmission and mustn’t be used to do so”.
Yet Ministers and the press are all reporting that these events in the trial had no effect on infections and were safe to reopen.
Yesterday, a No. 10 spokesperson explicitly denied that government Ministers have used private email addresses. They said:
“Both the former health secretary and Lord Bethell understand the rules around personal email usage and only ever conducted government business through their departmental email addresses”.
This is directly contradicted by the Second Permanent Secretary in meeting minutes published by the Sunday Times. Those minutes clearly state that former Health Secretary Matt Hancock
“corresponds only with private office via a gmail account”.
As the Good Law Project has reported, on 19 April 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, emailed the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, at his private address, about the availability of Covid-19 test kits via a Canadian company, saying:
“Certainly worth contacting … to see if they can help … and the pricing seems competitive.”
Self-evidently, this is government business, and specifically within the portfolio of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. The noble Lord, Lord Feldman, once co-chair of the Conservative Party, was writing to the Minister at his private email address on government business. In addition, I note that the Minister’s meeting with Abingdon Health on 1 April 2020 was not disclosed on the ministerial meeting schedule.
We note that, unlike the response from the noble Lord, Lord True, on the earlier UQ, it is not possible for the public to access private emails; the Freedom of Information Act specifically excludes it. Not going through the formal government-approved routes, whether for emails or declarations of meetings, gives the impression that perhaps the Minister has something to hide from his dealings with a former chairman of the Conservative Party and the company he was acting for. I note that the company was awarded an £85 million contract after the meeting and the emails.
There has been considerable speculation about the role of Ms Gina Coladangelo as a lobbyist, unpaid adviser to Matt Hancock and then a non-executive director for the Department of Health and Social Care. The press and media have also reported that the Minister gave Ms Coladangelo a parliamentary pass last year. Can he tell the House what personal parliamentary service she provided for him during that period? Does the Minister feel that his position is tenable, given this evidence?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for those extremely thoughtful questions. As ever, I welcome the challenge and scrutiny that the House of Lords always provides on these matters.
I completely endorse what the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, very thoughtfully said about Chris Whitty. Chris Whitty and JVT are both complete legends, and both have been accosted in public. This is completely unacceptable. We must look at the security of those who serve us so well, and we must somehow address the disrespect that often happens when public figures walk in public. It is a great regret that this has happened.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about nurses’ pay. I repeat to her what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health said yesterday: this absolutely remains a priority. We must have a fair pay settlement. That pay settlement is going through the pay review process at the moment, and we look forward to receiving the output on that.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, asked about the basis for the optimism that we have at the moment. I have stood at this Dispatch Box for 18 months as the purveyor of difficult news to the House, and have lived through some very difficult moments in that time. I am acutely aware of the concerns that noble Lords have. I think the questions put were very reasonable and deserve a clear answer, so let me explain why we are a bit more optimistic than I think we ever could have been in the recent past. The case rates are slowing down, for both over and under-60s. Hospital admissions among the over-60s have started to fall, and while there are signs in both measures that the rate of growth is slowing, there is just not enough to fundamentally change our assessment of the risk of delta. In the last two weeks, we have seen case rates fall in both Bolton and Blackburn. That is an incredibly important observation, and one that bears testimony to the effectiveness of the local authorities, test and trace, and all of those who have contributed. It is mainly driven by the under-60 group, but not wholly. Rates among older people are plateauing right across the country at a lower level, and hospitalisations and severe illness are being prevented by people being doubled vaccinated against Covid-19. There are very clear signs that the vaccine is working in lots of ways.
By 19 July, two significant things will have changed that may give us stronger confidence. First, we will have offered a first dose to all adults in the United Kingdom. The NHS states that it can do this by 19 July. We will have also given a second dose to a higher proportion of over-40s, giving them more protection against hospitalisation. Secondly, we will be very close to the school holidays, which start on 26 July, and school-aged children being out of school. This will significantly reduce transmission among the population which is unvaccinated and has driven case growth. Universities should also be out.
We are monitoring the data every day. So far, we have not seen indicators that substantially change our assessment of the four tests. I hear loud and clear what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, says about Andrew Marr and his experience. Vaccination is not a panacea. It does not save everyone from any illness at all, but it has a significantly strong effect for us to move on to the next stage.
In terms of the backlog, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we are putting funds in place to do whatever it takes to get us back to where we began. I cannot give the specific reassurances she asked for on whether specific funds will be extended, but it is our aspiration to work as hard as we can. On GP data, I assure her that the clinical trial progress that we have made on things such as Regeneron in the last few days gives us such a clear inspiration and motivation for ensuring that we get this project right. On trusted research environments, we have demonstrated that we listen and that we will change how we implement the GP data transfer, but our objective remains resolute. We are committed to continuing with this programme of work.
I will give a very clear response to the very important question regarding emails, asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton. I am absolutely rigorous in ensuring that government business is conducted through the correct formal channels. Contracts are negotiated by officials, not by Ministers. Submissions from officials are handled through departmental digital boxes, and that is right. Official decisions are communicated through secure governmental infrastructure.
I have read the Ministerial Code; I have signed it and I will seek to uphold it in everything that I do. The guidelines are clear that it is not wrong for Ministers to have personal email addresses. I have corresponded with a very large number of noble Lords in this Chamber from both my parliamentary address and my personal address. That is right and I will continue to do so. In their enthusiasm, third parties often seek to engage Ministers through whatever means that they can find, including their personal email. That is not the same as using a personal email for formal departmental decision-making. Those who have seen material on the internet should judge it extremely sceptically, because distorted fragments of evidence do not provide sufficient grounds to rush to judgment on how Ministers do their business.
I do not recognise the substance of the comments of the Second Permanent Secretary, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and he has indicated to me that he does not recognise the substance of those comments. I completely recognise the comments that were made regarding the meetings with Abingdon Health. The meetings schedule from that week was overlooked because of an administrative oversight. It has now been uploaded to the internet. I will be glad to share a link to that register. On the complaint made by Anneliese Dodds, I have written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and would be very glad to share that letter with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton.
I take this post extremely seriously. During the work of the pandemic, many people—officials, Ministers and those in industry—worked extremely hard to address the severe epidemic that we face, and I am extremely proud of how that business was conducted.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, I note the impressive acceleration of the vaccine rollout and its relevance towards taking step 4 on 19 July, at a time when relief at the end of restrictions could lead to lack of caution and a surge in cases. Have the Government assessed whether it might be safer to prioritise those requiring first jabs over those waiting for their second—or, indeed, the opposite?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the question of prioritisation is one for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. In terms of operational delivery, we have moved to a moment of opening up jabs to all those over 18, and many places do not even require an appointment. Between now and 19 July we are escalating the speed at which we deliver the jab. I encourage all ages to step forward for their first jabs, and those who have an appointment for the second to ensure that they make use of it.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, some of the vaccines used in the United Kingdom have been found to be less effective against the beta variant currently spreading in South Africa. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of travellers from South Africa bringing the beta variant to the United Kingdom following the rugby tournament that is taking place there?
Lord Bethell (Con)
As ever, the noble Lord is extremely perceptive in his questions, and he is right that as we vaccinate more and more of the population, the risk will become less from highly transmissible mutants and more from those which can somehow escape the vaccine. The South African variant is the one that so far has demonstrated the greatest escapology. For that reason, we are extremely cautious about visitors who may come from areas that have the South Africa variant, including South Africa itself.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, although the Statement is upbeat, it does say that hospitalisation has doubled since May. This will not be solved in three weeks. What would it take to extend beyond 19 July on safety grounds and is the Minister ruling out restrictions this winter? Also, will the proposed top-down reorganisation of the NHS be abandoned?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, hospitalisations have doubled but the vast majority of them are among people who have not been double-vaccinated for plus two weeks. It is very striking, when you look at the list of who is in hospital, how many simply have not been vaccinated. That is why our focus is on seeing through the vaccination programme, particularly getting all those at-risk groups—those over 50—double-vaccinated as soon as possible.
I cannot rule out anything, but I am more optimistic today than I have ever been, and that optimism is grounded on a very careful study of the facts, having sat through the joint biosecurity presentations day in, day out, for months on end. While I cannot be 1000% confident of everything, since this virus has a lot that it can throw at us, I really am hopeful for the future.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, to minimise the need for another national lockdown, effective local test, trace and isolate systems will need to be in place. Therefore, can the Minister explain why, in the test and trace budget, centralised corporate services, which has no front-line test and trace activity, has £931 million more allocated than the localised front-line test, trace and contain allocation? If he does not have those figures to hand, can he please write to me, although not from his personal email address?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I suspect that I have corresponded with the noble Lord from my personal email address; I am deeply hurt that he does not want to receive any of my emails again, but not entirely surprised. The waiting at test and trace has moved dramatically, as I think the noble Lord knows, from the central supply of testing and tracing services to a much more local model, and that does not always manifest itself in the corporate accounts of the organisation. It manifests itself in both the management and the delivery, and I pay huge tribute to those who are involved in the local implementation. As I said earlier, the way in which the delta virus infection rates, which were skyrocketing at one point, have been turned around in places such as Hounslow, Blackburn with Darwen and other areas of the north-west is phenomenally impressive and is a tribute to the impact of test and trace.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, what has the SIREN study most recently established about the effectiveness of infection-induced antibodies over time? Furthermore, as per my Written Question, answered by the Minister on 2 June 2021, why has not Public Health England or another government-backed health body conducted a review of research on the long-term effects of face mask wearing when clinicians such as Antonio Lazzarino from UCL’s Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care cite deleterious health effects?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, SIREN is one of the most thought-provoking and interesting of all the many studies that we have done. It is a sad fact that we do not understand many of the aspects of the body’s immune system, and that is why we are so committed to that study. It suggests that once you have had the virus, your body’s immune system is extremely strong. The proportion of people who catch it a second time round is incredibly small. That is good news for those who have caught it and for those who have had the vaccine, because if the immune system works well after catching the virus, it probably works well after the vaccine. However, we continue to publish from the SIREN study. On the health impacts of wearing face masks, I am not fully across that, but I will be glad to write to my noble friend with any details that I may have.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
The Government have been concerned for some time that even though someone is symptom-free and has had both vaccine jabs, there is still some risk that they might pass it on to others. But surely the risk must be minuscule. Have the Government ascertained how minscule the risk is compared with other much more major kinds of risk, and has there been a danger of the Government overcompensating here, particularly with respect to those in that position wanting to enter this country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, what a perceptive question from the noble and right reverend Lord—he absolutely hits the nail on the head. The honest truth is that we do not have the precise figures on this but the indications are that he is right: the vaccine does not stop you being infected or transmitting it, but it reduces the chances of both those things dramatically. That is one of the reasons why we have kept our foreign travel arrangements under review. It is possible that the effect that he describes may mean that we can look very thoroughly at foreign travel—I think all noble Lords would welcome that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have no doubt about the Minister’s personal integrity but he will recognise that he is part of a Government who are not exactly renowned for their probity or truthfulness. I want to ask him about lateral flow tests. There have been reports that the accuracy of this test, which has been less than 100% in any case, is less still when it comes to the delta variant. Can he say a little more about that, and what discussions are taking place with UK companies, who appear to have developed better models which may be more accurate?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right that the Porton Down verification team has looked extremely closely at all lateral flow tests and their sensitivity to the delta variant in particular. There is suggestion and some indication that for very low viral loads, the LFTs are not quite as sensitive, or if they are sensitive, the band is less easy to read. However, for higher viral loads—in other words, the kind of viral loads that the body needs to carry to be infectious—there is no change of sensitivity. Therefore, from that point of view the LFTs continue to perform their original purpose very effectively but we need to keep a very close eye on sensitivity with the new variants.
I pay tribute to all UK companies which are coming forward with LFT, PCR or genomic sequencing tests. I am extremely proud of the progress that the UK diagnostics industry has made. We have extremely high standards and extremely high validation and authorisation protocols through Porton Down. Those standards are very difficult to achieve but we are working extremely closely with UK companies to try to get them over the line so that they can play an important role in our response to the pandemic.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Statement places great emphasis on regaining freedoms but has relatively little to say on the specifics of how we learn to live with Covid, as we surely must, given the rising number of new cases and concerns about new variants. Apart from a very brief mention of care workers, there were no other details of how the planned end of restrictions on 19 July will affect care home residents and their families. Can the Minister say what thought is being given to how we learn to live with Covid in care settings and when we can expect to see detailed guidance on this which balances the need for protecting the elderly and vulnerable from infection and improving the quality of their daily lives?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s question is entirely reasonable and I wish I could be more specific on the precise timing. The honest truth is that we look at the data every day; our experience through this pandemic is that our understanding improves every day and therefore the guidance that we provide is often provided at a relatively late stage. It is an unfortunate aspect of this awful pandemic and one that I know noble Lords have commented on with vigour in the past, but it is an unavoidable fact of life. However, the comments made very thoughtfully and persuasively by noble Lords about the conditions in care homes, the restrictions that are put on residents and the pressure that that puts on them and their families have been heard loudly and clearly by all those in the department and across government, and we will seek to address those concerns when the moment is right.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I remind the House of my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant Brigade of Gurkhas. According to the Daily Telegraph, 63 unvaccinated Gurkha veterans have now died in Nepal. Had they lived in the UK they would have been vaccinated, but because they left the Army before the law was changed, they have no right of abode here. Under the Armed Forces covenant which we are enshrining in law, we have a duty of care to our veterans, and the differential way in which we are treating our Gurkha veterans from their UK counterparts is a clear breach of that covenant. Just 20,000 vaccines, or less than 3% of a single day’s rollout in the UK, is all that is required. When will those vaccines be made available?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the points made by my noble friend and to the persuasive and energetic way in which he made them. Our thoughts go to those in Nepal, who face an awful position; the pandemic there is running extremely hot. I reassure my noble friend that colleagues at both the Department of Health and the FCDO are fully aware of the concerns of the noble Lord and the Nepalese people. We will put in place the kind of vaccination provision programme that we would like to see as soon as we can. Our priority for the moment is the UK. For all the reasons I just described, we must continue the march towards 19 July and get our own people vaccinated. However, my noble friend makes the point well; the sums involved are relatively small and we will seek to address them as soon as we reasonably can.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, there is a growing feeling in the arts that they are being taken for a ride. Up to 60,000 will attend the Euro semis but festivals such as Kendal Calling, with less than half of that capacity, and now WOMAD, have had to cancel because they have no access to the Events Research Programme data or to a government-backed insurance scheme. On top of that, despite the Costello study, our amateur choirs are restricted to six while professional choirs in similar settings are not. For the arts, none of this makes sense.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely understand the noble Earl’s points. On WOMAD, I have a particular interest in that fine festival and I am extremely sad to hear that it has been cancelled, and to have to change my family plans accordingly. I reassure the noble Earl that we have not overlooked the arts at all. They are absolutely paramount in our thoughts. The events research programme is making progress, but it consumes a high number of tests and we simply do not have the capacity, despite the huge investment we have made, for the kinds of figures that would be needed to open up the whole of the arts world at this stage. But I am hopeful that the research we are doing will create the kind of persuasive data necessary to figure out safe ways of reopening the arts, so that we can get back to the life we had as soon as possible.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Minister’s openness and transparency about his conduct. I also support what he said about the attacks on Dr Whitty. If there are no arrests before the end of the day, it will just show how useless the Metropolitan Police is under its current leadership. In his Statement, the Secretary of State talked about keeping the NHS safe. What I have not really connected, both from the previous Question and this Statement, is that keeping the NHS safe cannot be done in isolation. The issue of social care and its reform is inexorably linked to keeping the NHS safe, and that point does not seem to be used by Ministers as a serious connection. Finally, without abuse, if this country starts boosters or third jabs later this year when people in countries such as Nepal are still going without vaccinations, it will be a thundering international disgrace.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have failed in my mission, because I have sought to convey to the Chamber that we completely understand that the NHS, social care and public health—the three sectors of our healthcare system—are inextricably linked. That is why we are bringing to the House the health and social care Bill that we are. That is why we have already brought about a large number of reforms, including ICSs and the integration of various diagnostic elements, and have sought to bring more parity for social care workers and those in public health. The noble Lord absolutely hits the nail on the head. I completely agree with his point, and that is our guiding star for the future.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if we are to return to normality on 19 July, as the new Secretary of State has stressed in the other House is his aim, can my noble friend assure me that the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will be properly and effectively answered by a return to normality with choirs, inside and out? Can he also assure me—and I am sorry to press him on this yet again—that, by the end of August at the latest, all care home workers will have to have been vaccinated?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address both points. On singing, I have heard loud and clear the points made by many noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Cormack. The right honourable Secretary of State for Health said very clearly yesterday that it was his aspiration that we should return to normal as soon as possible and that he himself would be joining in the singing when it happens. I completely echo that point.
On social care workers, I am advised that we are working as hard as we can to get through the very delicate employment law and the consultations necessary. I know my noble friend would wish that this could all happen a lot more quickly, but the way in which we go about the treatment of our workers needs to respect their human rights, and that is why it is important that we do this in a thoughtful way. It is also necessary to build trust in the vaccine and I do not think that there would be anything gained by in any way pre-empting those processes.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, the hotel quarantine for those returning from red-list countries is having a huge, stressful impact on those using the hotels. I have a couple of examples to share and one or two suggestions to make. The first case is family A from Huddersfield. They went to bury their father in Pakistan. On return, they had huge difficulty booking hotels. At Heathrow Airport some family members were taken to Swindon and others to Camberley, which are about 50 miles apart. They could not be put in the same hotel, for some reason. They have made a formal complaint. I have received a copy of it and I am willing to send it to the Minister as well. It shows the level of dissatisfaction people are feeling.
The second example is from my home town, Luton, where, sadly, a young teenager lost his life in a tragic incident. His father and some other relatives, including somebody who is epileptic, were in Pakistan at the time. On their return, whatever amount of stress they had, they were taken to the hotel straightaway and were not allowed out, other than just coming for the funeral.
The third example—and I would say a more tragic one—is a family who went to Pakistan before it was put on the red list. The father was under stress and there are two disabled children. The mother died there and the children are waiting to come back to the UK—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord may wish to direct his question to the Minister at this stage.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, the suggestion is, please can those returners be tested and those who are found to be positive asked to quarantine in their own home? To observe their quarantine, they should have some kind of electronic tag instead of being put in expensive hotels and having these terrible experiences.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s testimony is very moving and I have no doubt that the red-list system has put a lot of pressure on a lot of families. I personally sign off on these exemptions, and every evening as I go through them and read about the stories people have, it breaks my heart—and I do it with huge regret indeed. However, the noble Lord needs to understand that we put the red-list system in place to protect this country. People simply cannot expect to travel in large family groups as if the pandemic had not happened, and they cannot expect the testing system to work as some kind of barrier to infection. We have tried that. It did not work. The proof is absolutely categoric.
If I may be honest with noble Lords, it is likely, unfortunately, that we will have to live with some red-list countries for some time to come. That is one aspect of the unwinding of this pandemic that is not likely to go away very quickly. I completely take on board the noble Lord’s guidance. If he would like to write to me about the specific examples, I would be happy to correspond with him. However, I would not be levelling with him if I did not make it clear that this is something that we are extremely committed to.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my right honourable friend Sajid Javid to his new role and also offer my public endorsement of the integrity of my noble friend the Minister. I echo the words of this Statement that we must learn to live with Covid, so that our country benefits from the fantastic vaccine success. I fear we have lost perspective on real life. Zero Covid and stopping people being ill with just one disease among the myriad diseases around us all our lives are wholly unreasonable—and indeed unattainable —aims. Can my noble friend comment on when we will take more seriously the mental health damage that lockdown and deprivation of freedom to see all our loved ones is causing, and the importance of trusting the British people to decide for themselves who they need to meet and hug and who—as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Cormack said—they feel safe to sing with?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I hear my noble friend’s comments loud and clear, and I think that we have hit some kind of inflection point where our focus is now much more on the learning-to-live rather than the saving-life dimension. I say that with unbelievable caution, having, as noble Lords know, been through all sorts of rollercoasters of expectation over the past year. I am extremely hopeful that the vaccine has laid out a clear path out of this pandemic. It is one that is fragile, delicate and could be overturned at any point, but, so far, the vaccine has seemed to be extremely durable.
On the mental health of the nation, I completely agree with my noble friend. It has put huge pressure on families, loved ones and communities. There have been positive benefits—my honourable friend Nadine Dorries spoke movingly about that to the Health and Social Care Committee the week before last. Some families in some communities have been drawn closer together— there is good evidence for that—but, for a great many, there has been a huge amount of pressure. I, for one, look forward very much to some lessening of that burden.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
The Minister has just commented that there may be red-list countries for some time to come, and that is clearly correct. That is a reflection of two things. First, many countries, particularly poorer countries, have not been able to vaccinate at our rates—not even close to that. The changes to Covid, which are making its spread both more easy and more dangerous mean that it is ripping through many of those countries and threatens many, many more deaths. Secondly, in doing so, it increases the chances of variants being bred in those countries and ultimately finding their way here—we know from experience that they will find their way here sooner or later. So, while feeling more optimistic about the situation here in the UK, what can we do to further ramp up the effort to support countries around the globe that are struggling to vaccinate their populations, struggling to save lives and, frankly, struggling to stop the creation of new variants that threaten this country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right: those three things are linked. We cannot live in a world where there is a high infection rate in large parts of it, where new variants prosper and where we cannot travel. That would be inhuman and unpragmatic. I met with the CEOs of the major companies that manufacture the vaccines in Oxford during the G7, and we discussed this point in great detail. It is frustrating, but I also have optimism that the manufacturing capability in the hubs around the world—in the geographical places where populations live—are being built today and, by the middle of next year, there will be a huge amount of vaccine capacity in order to address this problem. It is frustrating that it cannot happen overnight, but vaccine manufacturing capability takes time to build up, as we know only too well. However, those investments are taking place, and I believe that, as a world, we can beat this pandemic together.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Notwithstanding the disclosures of the past few days, may I tell my noble friend that I, for one, very much appreciate what Matt Hancock did and the immensity of the effort he put in to combat Covid infection? Step 4 is not a return to normality, so, for example, self-isolation requirements will continue after contact tracing. The Government now have a lot of research to look at whether daily lateral flow tests can replace self-isolation both for schools and for businesses, which are must disrupted by self-isolation. Can my noble friend say when the Government may be able to proceed to allow some schools and businesses to shift to daily lateral flow tests?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend’s comments are very much appreciated and taken on board. On his question about daily lateral flow testing, he is very perceptive and correct. This is an area that we have been exploring for some months, and we are working extremely hard to bottom it out with rigorous clinical trials—clinical trials are difficult to nail down, by their nature, but we have invested substantially in them. He is right that, for schools, for international travel and for contacts—those three things—daily testing may well offer an alternative to 10-day isolation. That would be a huge relief to many in the country, and it is something that we are very focused on delivering.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I welcome the change of tone when the new Secretary of State said that the big task ahead is to restore our freedoms—freedoms no Government should ever wish to curtail. Regime change is a bit disruptive, so I ask the Minister: are all the department behind this new approach, because it is in rather stark contrast to the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s more doom-laden, illiberal approach? As we have seen in this debate, there seems some reluctance, at least within Westminster, to allow fellow citizens to embrace freedom.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right to ask the question, but I would say to her that it is not actually the regime that has changed, although the regime has changed; it is that the data has changed. Last Tuesday, I sat through Covid Gold, which is our big set-piece data session—a two-hour deep dive into national and local data. Every week for the past 70 weeks, that has been a very chilling experience where we have looked at the progress of and tactics of this awful virus, and I have often left it with a very heavy heart. Last week, I genuinely felt that we had reached some kind of turning point and, on Friday, when I sat in my kitchen, I felt a great weight beginning to lift off my shoulders for the first time in a very long time. I cannot disguise from your Lordships that there may well be more surprises left in this virus. I cannot promise that I will not be standing at this Dispatch Box giving bad news at some point in future, but, right now, I am more optimistic than I have ever been, and I think that the Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State reflected that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the time for questions has now elapsed and, with regrets and apologies to those noble Lords whom I was unable to call, we must move to the next business.
Charities Bill [HL]
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
Tuesday 29th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Amendments as at 25 May 2021 - large print - (25 May 2021)
Baroness Barran
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant documents: 5th Report from the Constitution Committee and 4th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, this past year has put into sharp focus the importance of digital connectivity, which has been vital in keeping both people and industries going in these challenging times. In the other place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke about the potential for 5G and gigabit broadband to transform our lives. The Government are investing billions of pounds into these cutting-edge technologies. However, we can be confident in the technology only if we know that it is secure.
That is why we have introduced the Telecommunications (Security) Bill. The Bill will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world. It will protect our telecoms networks even as technologies grow and evolve, shielding our critical national infrastructure both now and for the future. I will briefly outline the context for the Bill and why it is necessary, before turning to the intent of its clauses and delegated powers.
The security and resilience of 5G and full-fibre networks is not just in the national security interests of the UK. It is also crucial to the UK’s economic interests and future prosperity. The House will recall that this Government published the UK Telecoms Supply Chain Review Report in July 2019. It found that telecoms providers lack incentives to apply security best practices and recommended a new framework for the UK’s public telecoms providers that will respond to new and emerging threats to the security of our networks. The review also recommended new national security powers for the Government to control the presence of high-risk vendors in UK networks. The Bill is our response to those recommendations.
I will now outline the intent of the Bill’s clauses, which can be broadly separated into two groups. Clauses 1 to 14 introduce a stronger telecoms security framework, placing new security duties on public telecoms providers. Clauses 15 to 23 introduce new national security powers to address the risks posed by high-risk vendors.
I turn first to Clauses 1 to 14. The Bill amends the Communications Act to create a tough new telecoms security framework, which consists of three layers. First, the Bill places strengthened overarching telecoms security duties on public telecoms providers in primary legislation. Secondly, specific security requirements will be set out in secondary legislation. Thirdly, guidance on the detailed technical measures that providers could take to comply with their legal obligations will be set out in a code of practice. The new legal duties in the Bill and the measures in the secondary legislation will apply to public telecoms providers operating within the UK.
To illustrate the specific measures that providers may be expected to adopt, we published an illustrative first draft of the security framework regulations on GOV.UK in January. We have been, and continue to be, in close contact with industry following the publication of the draft regulations. Comments received as part of this engagement are being considered in the drafting of the final version. We will launch a public consultation on the draft code of practice once the Bill achieves Royal Assent. This will ensure that views from all impacted groups are heard ahead of the new framework coming into force.
The Bill provides Ofcom with a new general duty to seek to ensure that telecoms providers comply with their new security duties and builds on Ofcom’s existing security duties. Ofcom will have new powers to assess providers’ compliance. In cases of non-compliance, Ofcom will be able to issue a notification of contravention and, ultimately, financial penalties of up to 10% of turnover. Recognising that Ofcom will have expanded duties, DCMS is working with it to ensure that it has the necessary capability and capacity to deliver those vital functions. We have already increased Ofcom’s security budget for this financial year by £4.6 million to reflect its enhanced security role, in addition to its existing funding. Ofcom will also continue to work closely with the National Cyber Security Centre in the delivery of its security functions. The two organisations have published a statement, available on Ofcom’s website, which sets out how they plan to work together.
Clauses 15 to 23 introduce new national security powers to manage the risks posed by high-risk vendors in our telecoms networks. The Bill includes new powers for the Secretary of State to designate specific vendors in the interests of national security and issue directions to public communications providers. Those directions will place controls on a provider’s use of goods, services and facilities supplied by a designated vendor. Once a designated vendor direction is issued, the Secretary of State can direct Ofcom to collect information from providers and report back so that the Secretary of State can determine whether a provider is complying with a direction. Government amendments were passed in Committee in the other place to bring the powers in Clauses 15 to 23 into force immediately upon Royal Assent.
The Government have announced that UK telecoms providers should cease to install Huawei equipment in 5G networks after September 2021 and remove all Huawei 5G equipment by the end of 2027. We published an illustrative direction and designation notice in November 2020 to demonstrate how the powers in the Bill could be used in relation to Huawei in line with these announcements. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, any proposed designated vendor directions and notices will be subject to the relevant consultation requirements set out in the Bill.
I will now turn to the delegated powers in the Bill. It contains nine delegated legislative powers to make secondary legislation and two administrative powers. Six of the delegated legislative powers are to amend the maximum penalties specified in the Bill. These are Henry VIII powers and are subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. A further two are powers to create regulations setting out specific measures to be taken to comply with the new security duties and are subject to the negative resolution procedure. Finally, one power is to make regulations commencing certain provisions in the Bill and is not subject to any procedure. The two administrative powers are the power to issue codes of practice and the power to give designated vendor directions to providers.
Our approach to the delegated legislative powers is in keeping with precedent. The powers to amend maximum penalties in the Bill are consistent with those in the Communications Act 2003. I appreciate the need for Parliament to have the right mechanisms to scrutinise the powers that we are taking in the Bill. I am confident that the approach we have taken finds the appropriate balance. As the House would expect, we have submitted the delegated powers memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I thank it very much for its prompt report on the memorandum, which I read with interest. The Government will consider the committee’s recommendation concerning the power to issue codes of practice about security measures and aim to respond to the report fully in due course.
To conclude, the Bill has not been designed around one company, one country or one threat. Its strength is that it will create an enduring and effective telecoms security regime that will be flexible enough to keep pace with changing technology and changing threats. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, those of you who participated in this House’s consideration of the National Security and Investment Act may, I am afraid, detect a few similarities in the nature of my contributions to this legislation. That is an unfortunate consequence of the Government’s failure to listen to the strength of feeling in the House on the subject of oversight during those debates.
Like that Act of Parliament, the Bill seeks to address concerns first raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee some seven years ago in its report, Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure, namely that there were serious failings in the way in which successive Governments managed the entry of foreign telecommunications companies into the UK market. Clearly, the Government have been listening to what the ISC, with its unparalleled access to highly classified material, has been able to discover on behalf of Parliament, leading to both pieces of legislation.
The ISC therefore welcomes this Bill. We strongly support the principle behind it and the new safeguards it introduces. However, as with the National Security and Investment Act, we are concerned that the Bill does not provide for sufficient parliamentary oversight of these important new powers. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill provides significant powers for the Secretary of State to designate certain vendors as high-risk and to direct telecommunications providers to abide by certain requirements about the use of equipment from designated vendors. When the Secretary of State issues, varies or revokes a designation notice or a designated vendor direction, he will lay it before Parliament, except when this is contrary to national security.
This is a perfectly reasonable provision. I, for one, would not wish the Government to publish information that would damage national security. However, as things stand, this results in a significant gap in Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the Government’s decision-making and use of these powers. I am sure noble Lords agree that this is not what Parliament expects.
There is a simple and elegant solution to this problem: any designation notices or designated vendor directions that cannot be laid before Parliament for reasons of national security should be provided instead to the ISC for scrutiny. Parliament established the ISC for this purpose. Indeed, it is the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to the most sensitive protectively marked information. ISC colleagues have made these points repeatedly in the other place but they, again, have fallen on deaf ears. The Government’s resistance to this idea, coming so swiftly after their resistance on the NSI Act, gives the unfortunate impression that they are seeking to avoid scrutiny—an impression I am sure Ministers will wish to correct.
The Government have been clear that they do not think the ISC’s scrutiny role should be included in the Bill. This is regrettable. We should not knowingly be passing legislation that has holes in it. However, once again, there is a ready solution to that problem. As noble Lords are aware, the Justice and Security Act 2013 requires the ISC’s specific remit to be set out in a memorandum of understanding between the committee and Prime Minister. The Government told Parliament that the MoU would provide the ISC with oversight of substantially all the Government’s intelligence and security activities. However, with the passage of the NSI Act and now this Bill, the MoU is self-evidently out of date. It is a very simple matter to update it to provide the ISC with oversight of these powers in the specific and limited way I described a few moments ago.
The committee has formally raised this issue with the Government and asked them to take forward updating the MoU to ensure that it meets the commitments the Government made to Parliament during the passage of the Justice and Security Act. For that reason alone, I do not intend to table an amendment that would put the ISC’s essential oversight role on these powers in the Bill. However, the Government should be in no doubt that they must address this issue; the current situation is not tenable. If the Government do not wish to amend the Bill to fill this oversight gap, they must give a commitment to update the ISC’s memorandum of understanding and provide the oversight that Parliament requires in that way.
A large body of opinion from all corners of the House feels strongly about this and, should another Peer table an amendment on it, I would support it. The Minister will recall the strength of feeling in the House when the Government failed to provide for ISC oversight of the powers introduced by the National Security and Investment Act. I urge the Government to work constructively with the ISC on this issue.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear exposition of the purposes and modus operandi of this Bill. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord West—Admiral West—and I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who is on the Front Bench.
During late summer last year, we debated the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act, when this security Bill was held out as a carrot, largely to try to curtail discussions of a Chinese nature. It did not work, of course, and we had those discussions, but here we are at last with this Bill. As we have heard, it provides the Government with considerable new national security powers to issue directions to privately-held public telecommunications providers, primarily with the aim of managing issues arising from high-risk vendors. As such, the Minister will acquire wide and sweeping powers.
The Bill also gives Ofcom wide duties and legal powers to monitor and assess the security of telecoms providers. For teeth, as we have heard from the Minister, companies that continue to use high-risk vendors could or will face very heavy fines. Perhaps the Bill’s headline outcome is the new controls on the use of Huawei 5G equipment, including a ban on the purchase of new Huawei equipment from the end of 2021 and a commitment to remove all Huawei equipment from 5G networks by 2027.
How will these Benches respond? First, I am happy to confirm that Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of having secure telecommunications networks. I am sure the Minister is relieved to hear that. Secondly, Liberal Democrats want to see Huawei technology removed as quickly and expediently as possible. However, I note, as the Minister hinted at but did not detail, that the issue is with more than one supplier and more than one country. I add that the issue of the treatment of Muslim Uighurs does not stop with this Bill. The genocide going on there creates much wider implications for our relationship with China than the issue of which technology makes our phones work. These implications are very important, but I understand that they are beyond the scope of this Bill.
Thirdly, Liberal Democrats strongly believe that the Government must now invest in developing telecommunications technology in the UK. We want to see an increase in the diversity of the UK’s telecoms supply chain. We also believe that a strong relationship with the European Union and the intelligence alliance Five Eyes will help us to ensure that security risks are dealt with quickly. Finally, Lib Dems want to see stronger protections for the privacy of people in the UK.
What we will be testing in Committee is threefold. First, does the Bill effectively shut out the technology it is meant to shut out? The trick to making communications secure will be the nuts and bolts of the Bill. Secondly, do the Minister and Ofcom have the right powers, and the necessary checks and balances, to make this Bill work? Thirdly, when it comes to supply chain diversification, can we actually shut out Huawei et al and have an effective communications network?
One at a time, first let us look at the prime intent of the Bill: to keep our networks secure. On the face of it, this is another skeleton Bill. With the presentation of a few statutory instruments here and there, the Government should theoretically be able to react swiftly, but are the Minister and Ofcom placed to pre-empt issues, rather than react to them? There is a technical difficulty here: in 5G particularly, the distinction between the core and edge of networks is blurred. With technology moving faster than government can, that distinction is almost meaningless and the threats will change from week to week. So can the Minister explain how Ofcom can ever successfully be ahead of the game and not chasing issues?
As we know, plans for removing Huawei have been announced, but this does not stop with Huawei. For example, legislation in the US is considerably broader. It identifies specific companies, including Huawei, but also ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation Limited, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. Limited and Dahua Technology Co. Limited. Also, US legislation covers telecommunications and video surveillance and services. Given the news this weekend, the Minister might like to review where we source CCTV cameras from in this country—I note that that was discussed in a previous debate. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that this legislation will cover the full range of security threats that we need to cover or will we see another Bill to broaden it yet further into surveillance and surveillance services?
Turning to the powers granted by this Bill, it gives wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State and next to no oversight to Parliament. Included are sweeping powers to address matters of national security and it is not clear, although the Minister has hinted, how Ofcom will really interact with the intelligence community. Furthermore, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord West, the committee, which has express oversight of national security, has been excluded from scrutinising how this legislation will operate. I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord West. In addition, there is no dedicated role for judicial or technical oversight. This is very different from the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, in which such provision exists. I expect my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones to comment more on this issue.
The Bill also gives sweeping powers to Ofcom. We heard from the Minister how Ofcom will be co-operating with the intelligence services, but this creates a conflict of culture within Ofcom and will inevitably lead to more opaque operations which will, in turn, create issues elsewhere. I am still not clear how that interface will work. It will be useful to investigate that in Committee.
Finally, I turn to supply chain diversity. The Minister in the Commons said:
“We must never find ourselves in this position again. Over the last few decades, countless countries across the world have become over-reliant on too few vendors”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/20; col. 75.]
Fine words, I am sure, but they come from a Government whose Chancellor and Secretary of State for BEIS have cancelled the industrial strategy and disbanded the Industrial Strategy Council. Undaunted, alongside the Bill the DCMS has published a diversification strategy. I suggest that Oliver Dowden, who adorns that document, is rowing somewhat in the opposite direction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Assuming that this strategy makes some headway against a running tide within government, it has three legs: “supporting incumbent suppliers”, “attracting new suppliers” and accelerating “open-interface solutions”.
I will take those legs one at a time, beginning with “supporting incumbent suppliers”. I am bemused by the term “incumbent”. I think it means domestic suppliers, because Huawei is an incumbent supplier and we have heard that it will not be getting support. Assuming domestic suppliers is what is meant—there are world trade rules that make it difficult to preferably treat domestic suppliers, but assuming these can be surmounted —can the Minister give us the current estimate of how many incumbent domestic suppliers are in our network and what percentage, in terms of value, they represent?
To fill that gap, we are going to need pretty rapid innovation. Innovation is not easy and the speedy innovation we have just seen with the Covid vaccine, for example, was helped by two important conditions: first, a very strong existing R&D base in this country and secondly, a guaranteed private sector market for the vaccine. I do not think these conditions exist for telecoms technology. So, what is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of telecoms research and development in the UK? How will the private networks be encouraged to guarantee a market for any UK-based and UK-developed products that emerge?
The second strategic leg is “attracting new suppliers”. I suspect this is going to be an easier job than building an industry from scratch in this country. Will the Minister confirm how the vetting process will work? I assume this will be in the code of conduct. Will the networks have to be externally cleared? Will they be subsequently audited, and how deep does approval go? Does every component of every sub-assembly need to go through a process, and how will this all unfold in building the networks? It begins to sound quite cumbersome if there is going to be a nuts and bolts check of the technology.
The third leg is accelerating “open-interface solutions”. The Government are moving ahead at speed with open-access radio networks and open RAN piloting, and should be congratulated. If it goes to plan, when will we start to see this becoming significant? How will the Government get the existing vendors to increase the scope of their interoperability? What, in a sense, is in it for them?
We overwhelmingly support the objectives of this Bill. There are serious issues, particularly in the absence of detail and scrutiny. The regulations remain a mystery until they are published, and the process is potentially pretty bureaucratic. I think the Government have recognised that there are issues, which probably reflects why there are four days in Committee ahead of us. We may need all four of those days.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill. It is not only necessary, it is also overdue, but it is just one step on a path along which we have much further to go. By itself the Bill will have only a limited impact. If we are to realise its benefits, we need to think about the wider questions it leaves unanswered. Addressing these questions is crucial to our future safety and prosperity.
Throughout history, technological advances have brought with them exciting new opportunities, but they have also introduced serious vulnerabilities. Meanwhile, as our society has grown more complex, interconnected and interdependent, so its ability to weather shocks has grown more fragile—to the point now that serious technological disruptions could have catastrophic consequences. This should not be taken as an argument against embracing technology and the benefits it confers. It should, though, make us think very seriously about the new vulnerabilities we create and how we might mitigate the associated risks.
The Bill goes some way towards meeting that responsibility, but it does not provide the whole answer. As the title of the Bill tells us, the issue we confront is one of security, but we have to ask ourselves what exactly we mean by that term. In my view, we do not mean invulnerability. We should certainly seek to defend critical areas such as our telecommunications from attack, but a defender always has certain disadvantages. The choice of when, where and how to attack lies with the assailant and the defender is, at least at first, on the back foot. This problem is particularly acute when the space or activities to be defended are widely spread, as with our telecommunications network. We cannot therefore assume that an attack will fail, no matter how well we prepare. Quite the opposite: we have to assume at least a degree of success. So, the security of our national telecommunications infrastructure becomes a question less of how to prevent attacks entirely and more of how well we can absorb and recover from them.
In its first report of May last year, the National Infrastructure Commission acknowledged as much and recommended an architecture which can “anticipate” challenges, “resist, absorb” and “recover” from attacks and adapt accordingly. It calls on the Government to set “resilience standards”, appoint regulators to “oversee regular stress testing” and require that:
“Infrastructure operators produce long term resilience strategies”.
Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made in implementing these recommendations?
All of this seems to throw up two different categories of question: what policies and actions would best protect our infrastructure from attack and achieve the necessary resilience, and how do we provide appropriately rapid assessments and directions to counter the effects of such attacks?
On the first point, at which this Bill is aimed, the Huawei experience would seem to suggest restricting the provision of parts of our infrastructure to trusted suppliers and operators, but who are they and how are they to be engaged? They cannot be drawn solely from the ranks of “British” companies—whatever that means in today’s globalised business environment—since we do not have the mass, the spread or the technologies within our economy to meet all our own needs. It is certainly possible to identify less risky 5G suppliers than Huawei, but not ones that are risk free.
Even where we do have a national capability to provide and operate parts of our infrastructure, problems remain. Are the Government to identify such national champions in selected areas of business? This may be necessary in some very restricted areas, but such dirigisme has a poor track record in the UK for two principal reasons. First, the Government are not very good at identifying winners. Secondly, in order to remain in business, such champions need a regular drumbeat of UK orders, which, in turn, stifles competition and efficiency. There are many salutary examples of this in the history of defence procurement.
A more productive approach might be to decrease reliance on one or even a few suppliers and thus build a degree of redundancy into the most critical parts of our infrastructure. This would not be the cheapest solution, at least in the short term, but the level of insurance that it provides might be well worth paying for. The Government need to develop an approach that balances cost, risks and resilience—that constantly monitors and rebalances this equation in the context of our complex and dynamic world.
This requirement, alongside the observation that some of our judgments will inevitably prove to be wrong, and in the expectation that some attacks will succeed, at least in part, brings me to my final point. Things move quickly in the world of technology, and they will move even faster during a determined attack on our telecommunications infrastructure. If we are to respond successfully, if we are to absorb the first blow, recover from it and reshape ourselves for the future, we will need two things: agility and adaptability. Agility in this sense is our ability to respond quickly to those things we did not or could not foresee—to change our systems, plans and, indeed, our thinking on the fly to check and outmanoeuvre our opponents. Our resilience and ability to recover will depend on this. Adaptability, by contrast, is about our ability to change our longer-term posture in the light of emerging threats and opportunities and to learn from both failure and success. Agility keeps us in the fight and helps us master immediate challenges. Adaptability maintains our readiness in a changing world.
Provision of these crucial attributes cannot be left to the individual service providers, but neither can they be delivered by the Government or by a regulatory body such as Ofcom. Those organisations can and should formulate policies, allocate resources and check compliance, but we also need a much more flexible arrangement to provide effective command and control of both our detailed preparations for, and our response to, attacks. Perhaps there is a role here for an expanded National Cyber Security Centre. So, while I welcome and support this necessary Bill, I urge the Government to view it as just one stage of a much longer journey. It is a good plan, but like all plans it will not survive first contact with the enemy. If we are safely to reap the benefits of new technologies, we need ways not just of regulating them but of dealing swiftly and competently with the dangers presented by their malign exploitation. This Bill goes only so far; we need to go much further.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. In the time available, I want to welcome the Bill, which, as we have already heard, delivers on promised made by the Government and Ministers in 2019 and 2020: that a comprehensive telecoms security framework would be put in place. As my noble friend the Minister said, this is a comprehensive security framework that will provide an opportunity to look beyond just one company or one country of concern. As we have heard from previous speakers, over the years there will of course be more threats and more areas and companies of concern that will arise.
I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that of course this is a first step. As we know, with security threats and with emerging technology, over the years a more comprehensive response will be needed, but I think the Government are to be congratulated that the midst of the disruption over the last 15 months, this telecoms security framework Bill has been brought forward as was promised. The other side to this, as we have already heard, is noble Lords’ desire to hear about the pace and rollout of the diversification strategy. My noble friend the Minister will, I hope, be taking this from the House and be able to address it in her comments.
As noble Lords will be aware, the use of 5G technologies, the importance of 5G to the delivery of the internet of things, the use of artificial intelligence and other technologies, are only going to grow. Just this morning, I was part of this House’s Covid-19 Committee listening to evidence about the increase, as we have seen, of course, of people working from home over the last year, running their businesses from home and, as some of us have seen more closely than others, home schooling—which we all hope there will be no need for again in future. Without secure, reliable and resilient broadband internet and 5G connectivity, we will put ourselves at a disadvantage as a country.
The need for that resilience—as well as having secure networks—means that if we are asking companies to take out the technology from a particular other supplier, or to not use technology from particular countries in future, for extremely understandable, wise and prescient security reasons, we will need to make sure that we build up a secure, long-lasting and sustainable supply chain strategy in this country. This may not relate only to domestic companies; we have allies around the world and will want to be able to work with other companies and countries around the world to make sure we have that diversity of the supply chain. The lack of diversity has been referred to as a market failure, and I think that was correct. The Government have now very much got on top of this and got ahead of this. I hope the Minister will, as the Bill goes through this House—I will have great pleasure in supporting it as it does—and in future, be able to keep the House updated about the delivery of that diversification of the supply chain, as was announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in November last year. I wish the Bill every success as it proceeds.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I hope to be very brief. We ought to remember three things. First, our lives are very short—although I am 85—in comparison with the 300 years of the Industrial Revolution. Secondly, that is 0.1% of Homo sapiens’ existence on this world. Thirdly, the world is much older still. Is the Minister assured that the development of innovation that is part and parcel of what we want to see over the next few years is going to continue, or is this going to be a block on the continuation of that?
More importantly, much of what Ofcom deals with is international, not national. Therefore, it is going to be much more difficult to respond to an entitlement of that nature internationally than nationally. It is easy to deal with four or five companies that deal with telecommunications within this country, but it is not so easy to deal with them internationally, particularly with Facebook and Twitter and all the other things that go with that. I have no idea where they come from. Does anybody know where they come from? Netflix is a massive organisation, now producing more than the BBC, but where does it come from? Where exactly is it, in terms of telecommunications generally? Amazon Prime—again, where does it come from? I pay my bill to Amazon Prime regularly, but where on earth do I pay it to? Where does it go?
I suggest three things: first, that we deal with the international issue; secondly, that we deal with the issue that I raised to start with; and thirdly—more importantly—that we ask whether our democratic system keeping up with the improvements in science and technology that are happening around the world at present. Yes, in 1820, two-thirds of people in Britain lived below the level of absolute poverty. Now, the United Nations is talking about abolishing that term because that level no longer exists. Poverty exists, of course, but absolute poverty does not exist. On vaccines, even in the present crisis, the number of people who are vaccinated now is higher than in the past. The number of people who can read and write is also higher. So, why are we not tackling the problem of changing our constitution to ensure that we keep up with the scientific and technological improvements happening around the world?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear and convincing explanation of the need for this Bill, which I support. I have a possible interest as a beneficiary of the British Telecom pension scheme but, as it was a nationalised industry when I worked for it and our main preoccupation was the introduction of subscriber trunk dialling in the 1960s, I fear that much of my knowledge of the technical side of the telecommunications industry is 60 years out of date.
I mention in passing the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which says, on the power in Clause 3, that the committee is unconvinced by the department’s case and recommends a negative procedure for the code of practice. That seems to me to be a concession that the Government could consider. I noticed with approval the Minister’s conciliatory response when she spoke about the committee’s report.
There are three issues I want to raise briefly. The first concerns whether the Secretary of State’s directions and designations under the Bill are justiciable and whether issues of national security could end up being decided not by Ministers but by the courts. For example, could a potential supplier, such as Huawei, assert that there was no risk to national security in any ministerial designation, that decisions were being taken to protect domestic suppliers and that no reasonable Secretary of State could have reached such a conclusion and seek an injunction? In which case, despite the passage of the Bill, we would find that there was extensive and time-consuming litigation, during which time investment in telecoms infrastructure would be frozen and potential security issues would be ventilated in the courts. Can my noble friend say that every precaution has been taken to avoid such a scenario?
Related to this is whether the Secretary of State has to give reasons for his decisions. We are told in the Explanatory Notes:
“Designations and directions may only be made in the interests of national security.”
Paragraph 35 then sets out the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account, which presumably could give ammunition to a potential litigant. Subsection (5) of new Section 105Z1 of the Communications Act 2003 inserted by Clause 15 says:
“A designated vendor direction must specify … the reasons for the direction”.
However, the next subsection says that “specifying reasons” need not be given if it
“would be contrary to the interests of national security”,
while, in new subsection (2)(1) we are told that a direction can be given only
“in the interests of national security”.
So, we seem to be going round in circles. I wonder whether my noble friend can shed some light on this paradox.
My second question relates to responsibility for telecommunications security within the Government. The Explanatory Notes tell us:
“The security of telecoms infrastructure needs to be considered within an international context”
and we read how cyberwarfare is going to displace conventional warfare. The powers given to the Government in the Bill to protect the integrity of our communications network rest with DCMS but, at the moment, the Secretary of State is not on the National Security Council, which to me seems a surprising omission. The National Cyber Security Centre, whose work is central to the operation of the Bill, is part of GCHQ, which reports to the Foreign Secretary. The Cyber and Government Security Directorate sits within the Cabinet Office, leading on the co-ordination and delivery of the classified national security risk assessment, which assesses the most significant risks to the UK. When I answered Questions for the Cabinet Office in Your Lordships’ House, I had to answer Questions about Huawei—or, if I did not answer them, I at least replied to them. Finally, a significant proportion of telecommunications research is led and funded by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and its external bodies, such as UK Research and Innovation and Innovate UK, report to BEIS. Can my noble friend explain, perhaps in a letter, the inner wiring of responsibility for dealing with cyberwarfare between the FCDO, the Cabinet Office, the MoD, BEIS and DCMS?
My last point concerns the ambition to create one of the toughest security regimes in the world and set up the UK as a global leader in the telecoms supply chain, a point made by my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes. I very much welcome this. Other countries in the free world face the same challenges as the UK in protecting the integrity of their national networks and others are reducing their dependence on Huawei. So, there is a real opportunity here to win new markets, create fresh investment and employment in the UK on the back of this Bill and build back better. To what extent is the UK liaising with other countries to ensure that the standards—the codes of practice mentioned in the Bill—are recognised by other countries, so that the new supply chains that we plan to create in the UK enable us to penetrate new markets? Can my noble friend amplify what she told us in her letter of 2 June about the steps we are taking to set up the UK as a global leader in this field? What progress has been made in attracting new suppliers to the UK market? What is the follow-up to the telecoms diversification task force under my noble friend Lord Livingston? It reported in April with a wide range of recommendations: the co-ordination of government activity, a targeted international engagement strategy, joint working on standards and buy-in by other countries.
I conclude by quoting from that report—-:
“It is therefore essential that the UK coordinates its efforts with like-minded nations and focuses investment in areas that can succeed on an international, not national scale. … If the Government is to move the dial towards the UK’s long-term vision for the market, it will require buy-in and support from a critical mass of nations.”
I have not seen a government response to those thoughtful and wide-ranging recommendations. Perhaps, again in a letter, my noble friend could set out how we plan to build on the recommendations in that report.
With these comments, I wish my noble friend well as she pilots this Bill on to the statute book.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very fair introduction to the Bill. As a former member of Huawei’s international advisory board, I am somewhat conflicted in a discussion about the principles of the Bill, especially following the various twists and turns in government policy. I very much support the 5G supply chain diversification strategy, but the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Fox and the noble Lord, Lord Young, need to be answered. How it is progressing and where any financial support is going need to be the subjects of regular report by government, given that in the short term we are faced by a stark dual-supplier market.
As my noble friend Lord Fox has indicated, however, I want to focus on, and confine myself to, a debate about the wide-ranging new powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State and Ofcom and the lack of adequate checks and balances, especially in terms of oversight, whether parliamentary, judicial or, indeed, technical, which permeates the Bill. If there are going to be these extensive new powers, we need to make sure that they are exercised properly and with due process and consultation.
The Delegated Powers Committee report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young, is just the tip of the iceberg. It draws the attention of the House to the proposed new Section 105E of the Communications Act 2003, which gives the Secretary of State power to issue, revise or withdraw codes of practice about security measures that should be taken by providers in the performance of their duties to prevent security compromises. There is a duty to consult with Ofcom and providers but no oversight or approval role for Parliament.
I am glad to say that the committee, in the light of the importance of the code in assessing compliance and in enforcement by Ofcom, was unconvinced by the department’s claim that this was too detailed and technical, and “not legislative”. As the committee says,
“The Bill provides for codes of practice to play a significant role–both in relation to the exercise of OFCOM’s regulatory functions and in legal proceedings - in supplementing the important duties to take security measures that the Bill imposes on providers.”
It concludes:
“In our view, it is unacceptable for codes of practice that will have the significant statutory effects provided for in this Bill to be subject to no Parliamentary scrutiny procedure.”
I differ from the committee simply in that, in my view, the procedure to be adopted must, at minimum, be the affirmative procedure. As Comms Council UK has pointed out, Section 105E is not the only proposed new section which gives the Secretary of State extensive powers; there are others. Proposed new Section 105Z1, for example, gives power for the Secretary of State to outlaw the use of individual vendors, where there is potentially no parliamentary oversight, if the Secretary of State considers it would be contrary to national security—as has been referred to by other noble Lords. Surely that is exactly where oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord West, has so cogently said, or by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, as the Constitution Committee has suggested, would be not only appropriate but essential. The whole area of enforcement of compliance and, under proposed new Section 105Z27, as regards power to require information and the requirement not to disclose, needs similar oversight.
Nor is there any dedicated role for judicial oversight. Unlike similar legislation, such as that under Part 8 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, there are no provisions for judicial oversight of the Secretary of State’s powers. This is compounded by the fact that, under Clause 13, in any appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the tribunal cannot take account of the merits of a case against the Secretary of State, the rationale for which, as the Constitution Committee says,
“is unclear and is not justified in the Explanatory Notes.”
Can the Minister make a better fist of the explanation today?
With regard to Ofcom’s new powers to ensure compliance with security duties, as set out in the proposed new Section 105M, how will these relate to Ofcom’s existing powers under Sections 3 and 6 of the Communications Act 2003? Will this duty and the new powers Ofcom is being given still be subject to good regulatory practice so that, for example, it still must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency, and not impose unnecessary burdens? How will this fit in with the statement to be made by Ofcom under proposed new Section 105Y? What assurance can the Minister give? Will we see a draft during the passage of the Bill?
Similar considerations apply to the new Ofcom powers to assess compliance under Clause 6 and in regard to inspection notices under Clause 19. As the council has also pointed out, there are no clear mechanisms for technical feedback or expertise to be fed in. It observes that many of the technical requirements that will be placed on its members are not in the text of the Bill but in accompanying documents which are either yet to be published or are receiving very little scrutiny.
Already it is clear that, in the draft Electronic Communications (Security Measures) Regulations, which are to be made by virtue of the proposed new Sections 105B and 105D, giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations to require telecoms companies to take “specified security measures” and “in response to security compromises”, there are real issues with regard to provisions about patches and supply chains and definitions regarding audit and monitoring of foreign network operations centres, and it is not clear that expert technical industry comments are being taken on board. What further consultations are planned? Is this not exactly where a technical advisory board and/or panel, as under the 2016 Act, is needed? Will they even be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament?
This lack of clarity and transparency is causing a great deal of uncertainty within the industry. Measures are being proposed that are either technically unworkable or potentially damaging to the strength and health of the UK telecoms industry. Particular concerns arise for providers whose networks are not based purely in the UK and who do not have the relationships with the department, Ofcom and the NCSC that domestic providers may have if there is no structured consultation, oversight and update process when codes are being drawn up. BT itself says:
“we believe greater clarity is needed on OFCOM’s planned approach, with safeguards introduced in the Bill to ensure operator burdens are proportionate.”
It also makes the point that the flexibility in the Bill should not be used to bring forward any deadlines for removal of equipment. What assurance can the Minister give on this?
As well as concerns about the new powers, there is also concern reflected by the Constitution Committee about the width of crucial definitions such as “security compromise” and “connected security compromise” contained in the Bill, and the consequences that flow, particularly as regards planned outages and the need to make a clear distinction between reporting on security compromises and on resilience.
I think that I have gone into enough detail at this Second Reading to amply demonstrate that we have quite an amendment job ahead of us in Committee and on Report.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for making time to see me and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, last week. The noble Lord is chairing his Select Committee this afternoon but intends to speak at later stages. By way of follow-up, the Minister will have seen the letter to her from the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, sent yesterday. Like them, I want to speak about human rights, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the strengthening of national resilience and diversification, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes.
On its front cover, the Bill begins with a declaration from the Minister referencing the Human Rights Act 1998 and stating that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms—to give it its full title—was originally proposed by Winston Churchill and drafted mainly by British lawyers, and it is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among other things, the convention insists on the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for family and private life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to marry and start a family, the right to participate in free elections, and the abolition of the death penalty. In considering a Bill which has been framed to explicitly rule out, in 5G provision, the future involvement of a company with close links to the Chinese Communist Party but which enables other links with other companies, it needs to be restated that every single one of these articles are broken each and every day by the Chinese Communist Party, and that they affect citizens outside its territory as well.
Although the Government may say that the ECHR is not the instrument with which to test their commitment to human rights, the compatibility statement should be read in line with other international law obligations, not least the prohibition on violating peremptory norms of international law, genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery and torture. The UK is, of course, a signatory to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and is bound by its own law on modern slavery. All provisions of customary international law and conventional law are binding on the UK Government, so we need to know what due diligence has been undertaken when considering their duty to prohibit and prevent genocide, along with the commissioning of other grave crimes.
The inadequacy of the compatibility statements led to an amendment to create a human rights threshold being tabled to the Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill. Later, in the Trade Bill, the House voted overwhelmingly for the all-party genocide amendment. Perhaps the Minister can say what has happened to the promised committee to examine genocide determination. In this context, the Joint Committee on Human Rights should re-examine the purpose of those declarations.
One year ago, the Minister pointed me to Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, and she will recall promises to examine supply chain transparency and export controls. As I was assured:
“The Home Office keeps compliance under active review.”
Supply-chain transparency has been referred to in our debate by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes. In the absence of any progress on that promise to tackle the issue of supply-chain transparency, on 15 June I presented a Private Member’s Bill in your Lordships’ House to amend the Modern Slavery Act. To honour the Government’s undertaking, perhaps the Minister will consider adopting that Bill and providing it with parliamentary time.
Although this legislation is not specifically about China or Huawei, those were the country and company that have featured heavily in our debates. I welcome the explicit references to Huawei in the illustrative draft designation notices and designated-vendor direction to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred in her introductory remarks.
The situation in Xinjiang has not improved. The Government continue to say there are
“systematic human rights violations in Xinjiang, including credible and growing reports of forced labour”,
and the Foreign Secretary says this is “on an industrial scale.”
In 2019 and 2020, I specifically asked about Huawei’s compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and drew attention to China’s national intelligence law requiring Chinese organisations such as Huawei to support, assist and co-operate with state intelligence work. I also asked about reports that UK investors hold shares totalling £800 million in companies that supply CCTV and facial-recognition technology used to track Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. The Government admitted that they were aware of those reports but complacently said they had
“not undertaken analysis of British investor shareholdings in Chinese surveillance companies.”
Meanwhile, however, Foreign Office Ministers were telling me the department had
“serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including extensive and invasive surveillance targeting Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities. An extensive body of open source evidence suggests such surveillance, including the use of facial recognition technology, plays a central role in the restrictive measures imposed in the region.”
The House should recall that the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee wrote to the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, urging him to
“cease consideration of Huawei as a contractor or partner for the UK’s 5G infrastructure until investigations have been conducted into Huawei’s work in Xinjiang and its relationship to the mass persecution”.
Has that investigation taken place, and what were the conclusions?
Professor Adrian Zenz, a German scholar who recently gave evidence to the independent Uyghur Tribunal, says:
“Huawei is directly implicated in Beijing police state and related human rights violations in Xinjiang … it has lied to the public about this … In 2014, Huawei received an award from Xinjiang’s Ministry of Public Security for its role in establishing citywide surveillance systems.”
Professor Zenz says that Xinjiang represents
“the largest detention of an ethno-religious minority since World War II.”
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute meticulously details the global expansion of 23 key Chinese technology companies. One of its researchers, Vicky Xu, says the idea that Huawei is not working directly with the local governments in Xinjiang is “just straight-up nonsense”.
Since the Second Reading of this Bill in the Commons last November, there have been a number of developments that make it even more important to address the implications of being joined at the hip with any company operating under the auspices of the CCP. How do we justify deepening trade relations, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has told us he is seeking to do, with a country found by the House of Commons, in a vote on 22 April, to be complicit in events in Xinjiang where a genocide is under way? That was a vote in the House of Commons. It is not just my view or that of a group of human rights advocates; it is a view reached by the Commons. What action have we taken following that vote?
Last month, following that vote, Amnesty International issued a devastating report detailing arbitrary detention, forced indoctrination, torture, mass surveillance and crimes against humanity while the Daily Telegraph recently carried major first-hand reports from Xinjiang, including the destruction of 16,000 mosques. Harrowing evidence has been given to the independent Uyghur Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, some of whose sessions I was able to attend with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and whose brave witnesses and their families are now experiencing threats and intimidation.
If we add to the charge sheet reports of forced organ harvesting and the destruction of the rule of law, free speech and democracy in Hong Kong, along with the outrageous incarceration of legislators, lawyers, journalists, and campaigners, it is obvious that as well as security questions the House should give close attention to the human rights dimensions of this Bill. Although Huawei equipment in respect of 5G must be removed by 2027, and since the beginning of the year there have been prohibitions on purchasing any Huawei equipment, I hope we will probe how the installation prohibition will work from September and whether companies have been purchasing stockpiles with the intention of installing such equipment until 2027. How will the Government monitor this? Will some parts of the network—the most sensitive parts—be prioritised?
Earlier this month the Sunday Telegraph revealed that UK local authorities will review contracts for CCTV equipment from Hikvision, a Chinese tech firm that makes cameras used to monitor Uighur Muslims in China’s detention camps. The company is blacklisted in the United States but not here. This weekend the Washington Post reported on how Hikvision had recruited former legislators to extend its power and influence despite President Biden banning Americans from investing in the company, citing its links to the Chinese military. The UK is not immune to the influence of organisations such as The 48 Group Club, with a network of links to former and current politicians—including one who now publicly urges us to tone down our criticism of the treatment of Uighurs.
Beyond such influence, the role of hidden cameras was dramatically illustrated last week, as others have said, from the office of the former Secretary of State for Health. Yesterday the Lord Speaker wrote to us all saying that there are several hundred CCTV cameras in Parliament. I hope that in Committee we will consider the implications for civil liberties of placing such power in the hands of companies that install or own these cameras.
We should also consider the implications for security of giving such power to a regime intent on the overthrow of parliamentary democracy and which makes no secret of its goal of global hegemony. The hidden hands on the levers of power was a theme explored by the admirable Dr Julian Lewis MP, chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, at Second Reading in the Commons. He asked
“in view of the revolving door, via which too many businessmen and ex-civil servants effortlessly glide between their former roles and the Huawei boardroom, what assurance can we have that the Government will be immune from lobbying campaigns by those on the payroll of high-risk vendors?”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/20; col. 84.]
That question was not answered in the Commons, and I would like to hear the Minister’s opinion on it. I have another question that I shall ask her directly: why have not we, like the United States, banned Hikvision? The company has been accused of helping to build the CCP’s surveillance state and profiting from human rights abuses. Does the Minister agree with that description or not? What will the Bill do to take back control of CCTV equipment in our high streets, public buildings and even government offices?
I shall speak briefly about the implications of this Bill for diversification and national resilience. During the Commons stages, Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State, said the Bill recognises that there are real threats to the UK’s security and interests, a point that my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup explored in his excellent speech. I welcome what Oliver Dowden and my noble and gallant friend have said about security and diversification. In addition to the diversification of telecoms to companies such as Ericsson and Samsung, is that not a principle that should be applied across government?
I will give two brief examples. In May, I asked how many Covid lateral flow tests we had bought from China. The answer was a staggering 1 billion—not 1 million but 1 billion. The Government declined to say how much they had cost taxpayers or to reveal the names of the companies involved, saying “It’s commercially sensitive”. I tabled a further Question asking why we could not be told how much 1 billion lateral flow tests had cost us and which companies had carried out that trade. Are we seriously saying that we could not have used taxpayers’ money to make those tests in the UK and to give British workers jobs doing it?
My second example raises equally troubling issues. I was recently contacted by a librarian in Wigan, a lady of 34 years’ standing, who has been suspended after using social media to criticise her council’s decision to award redevelopment contracts to Chinese companies. She was fearful that they might have links to Xinjiang.
The Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick, should require all local authorities to provide details of such deals, and demand to see whether subsidised lowest bids for council developments have undercut unsubsidised UK companies, just as has happened in the telecommunications sector.
The persistent breaking of WTO rules on subsidies and competitions has enabled CCP dominance in telecoms, and now it is happening in other sectors as well. The Minister should tell us when we are going to raise this at the WTO and across Whitehall. Does he personally believe that it is ever licit or right to deepen trade with a country credibly accused of the crime-above-all-crimes: genocide. Diversification, national resilience and the upholding of our values, especially on fundamental human rights, are all reflected in the way we trade. Genocide is a line we should never cross. I support the Second Reading of this Bill today. I hope to return to these and other issues when we get to Committee and later stages.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after my noble friend Lord Alton, following his extraordinary commitment to the Uighur community and to issues of human rights. I too will speak in support of this hugely important and timely Bill.
The UK stands at a reset moment in an increasingly changing world. We have delivered on Brexit, confronted a global pandemic and have an ambitious levelling-up agenda. It is in this context that we are looking now to empower those who have been left behind, revolutionise our critical information infrastructure with the rollout of 5G and see us become a more prosperous and innovative nation. Yet, as we get ready to build back better, it is also time for a rethink of our geopolitical, strategic and technological approaches to make a more honest assessment of the world we find ourselves in, ensuring that we harness the opportunity to become stronger, safer and more prosperous than before.
I support this Bill, as it is the first of many steps that will be needed in adapting to our changing geopolitical landscape. The provisions in the Bill are necessary, as we need to act quickly to ensure our security apparatus is configured for today’s challenges. According to MI5, the UK has at least 20 foreign intelligence services actively operating against the UK’s interests. The Government’s own telecoms supply chain review, published by DCMS in 2019, found that the telecoms market was not working in a way that incentivised good cybersecurity. In its October 2020 report, the Defence Committee concluded that the current 5G regulatory situation for network security was “outdated and unsatisfactory”.
We have a world-class security and intelligence community but, as we enter this new era, we must accept that enabling it to adapt to emerging threats will be the defining feature of its success. This Bill needs to mark a national security turning point, where key infrastructure decisions are based on fact-based risk assessments, and not on commercial or political convenience.
This Bill also recognises the threat posed by high-risk vendors such as Huawei. We have known that Huawei is a security risk since 2013. A report from the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded back then that Huawei posed a risk to national security and that private providers were responsible for ensuring the security of the UK telecoms network.
According to Ofcom, Huawei accounted for about 44% of the equipment to provide superfast full-fibre connections directly to homes, offices and other buildings in the UK. Although it is not in the text of the Bill, the Government have now accepted, as we have already heard, that 2027 needs to be the end point for Huawei as a provider. This is an important moment in taking back our information technology sovereignty.
The reason behind this is clear. We have entered into a new era of geopolitics, with the battle for control of information technology at the forefront. The recent integrated review acknowledged that China’s growing international stature was by far the most significant geopolitical factor in the world today, with major implications for British values and interests and for the structure and shape of the international order. It recognised China as the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security. Yet that same review remains ambivalent as to the action we should take. We need to rethink our relationship with China into a more robust foreign policy strategy that prioritises both our security and our sovereignty.
While I support this Bill, there is more that needs to be done. There needs to be a more formal structure embedded in the Bill with regard to the powers given to Ofcom and the Secretary of State, as other noble Lords have said. Could the Minister outline what powers the Government intend that Ofcom and the Secretary of State should have, and how they will work with the ISC and the security sector to ensure accountability and to ensure national security is not compromised through lobbying?
Even beyond the Bill, we also need to invest in diversifying competition. As part of this Government’s ambitious levelling-up agenda, they have promised the nationwide rollout of 5G across Britain. But we have become hamstrung by our dependence on Huawei for this critical infrastructure. It did not need to be this way. This situation has been constantly described as a “market failure”, but it was not really a market failure. The failure was in the reality of one country breaking WTO rules on subsidies. The key problem has been that China has subsidised its providers dramatically, destroying the market over the past 10 years.
The diversification of our telecoms network, working in close partnership with our Five Eyes allies, needs to be a priority for this Government and an integral part of Ofcom’s reporting. When we genuinely open up the market to competitors, we create the environment for the innovation and dynamism that will be required as we move into the next quarter of the 21st century.
Huawei, however, needs to be stripped out quicker. While it is encouraging to see that the Government have set the 2027 target as the date by which Huawei should no longer be a provider, we cannot afford to wait until 2027 to remove Huawei from our existing networks. The process of removing Huawei’s influence from the UK is an extensive task, but an absolutely necessary one.
The Government should take the opportunity to consider other high-risk vendors such as TikTok and other companies operating here. This problem goes beyond Huawei. We face the existential question of how we coexist in a world with a technological superpower that does not share the same values of privacy of personal information, freedom of speech and democracy.
Chinese national intelligence laws dictate that private companies must share their data, when asked, with the CCP. The White House has sanctioned 11 Chinese companies, including suppliers to Apple, Google, HP and Microsoft. The list features companies that work with major fashion brands, along with technology giants such as Amazon, according to a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. I would like to ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of other high-risk vendors that could compromise UK citizens’ safety and security due to reporting requirements that exist in China.
Although this Bill encompasses all security threats and high-risk vendors, it is impossible not to address the need for a reshaping of our relationship with China. That country has overtaken Germany to become the UK’s biggest single import market for the first time since records began. The worth of goods imported from China rose 66% from the start of 2018 to £16.9 billion in the first quarter of this year. As we witness events in Hong Kong, which absolutely break my heart, because I used to live there, and we learn more about the ongoing genocide against the Uighur people, observe the breaking of WTO protocols in ongoing trade wars with our closest allies and uncover espionage across our universities, tech and innovation sectors, it is perplexing to me that we continue to sit on the fence.
The much-vaunted belt and road initiative has united authoritarian leaders across Eurasia in providing a forum to plan strategically, without being held back by discussions of human rights, freedom of speech or rule of law. It is in that policy programme that China’s tech giants, such as Huawei, export their communications infrastructure. I would encourage us to take the lead in the build back better world initiative, as discussed in the G7, to create stronger diplomatic alliances across Africa and the developing world but also to facilitate a viable alternative to the belt and road initiative, which threatens our geopolitical and economic security. The UK also needs to strengthen its ties with its Five Eyes allies and south Asian neighbours in the region such as Japan, India and South Korea, as well as approaching this issue with our European friends.
Safety and security is the first building block for the prosperity of a nation. Without secure defence measures at the heart of our critical infrastructure and online, our country runs the risk of opening itself up to foreign intelligence working against our nation’s interests. This Bill is an important step to creating that foundation, and I encourage the Government to use its passage to ensure that the foundation is as strong as possible.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I find myself in agreement with everything that she said.
Anything that improves the security of our tele- communications systems must be welcome, so I support this Bill, but I think it misses a golden opportunity. Telecommunications security covers a wide range of risks: from the resilience of the system to risks such as weather or power outages, through resilience to malicious attacks from hostile states or criminals, to the misuse of systems to access, alter or destroy data. From a consumer point of view, all those are really important, but the one security risk that impacts on people’s daily lives the most is the misuse of telecommunications networks and services by criminals and, apparently, by certain states, to facilitate fraud.
I explained during Second Reading of the Online Safety Bill that fraud is so widespread because it is easy, and it is easy because there is no incentive for a whole range of service providers to take the necessary steps to stop it. Those service providers include the search engines and social media companies, web-hosting companies, banks and more, but the list also includes telecommunications companies, which in effect facilitate fraud through three key weaknesses.
First, the most serious weakness is when a criminal is able to convince the service provider to transfer someone’s phone number so that they can control it. This is known as sim-swap fraud, which gives the criminal complete access to the victim’s emails, bank accounts, one-time passwords, contacts and so on. Indeed, with the ever-growing list of things that we can access and control from our phones, it could also give access to our front-door locks, our burglar alarms, our cars, which can now be unlocked and started by phone, and more. In fact, imagine the possibilities for criminals once we have genuinely self-driving cars all connected by 5G.
The second security weakness that telecommunications companies are allowing is the falsifying of caller IDs, when a criminal is able to appear to be calling or texting from a legitimate number, such as a bank or HMRC. As a result, the victim, believing the call to be genuine, is persuaded to provide bank details or transfer money.
The third security issue is allowing criminals to send out bulk malicious texts and calls using the networks, often in conjunction with false caller IDs. We are all bombarded with these all the time. I received one that I had not heard before just this morning; apparently, my national insurance number is being used for criminal purposes, and I must call the number or I shall have my assets seized and be arrested—so there we go. The calls can lead to fraud being perpetrated, and texts can include links that result in malware being loaded on to the victim’s phone, which allows access to emails and bank accounts. As well as fraud, they cause very real anxiety, yet we seem to have to accept them as an irritant of modern life. I probably receive more fraud calls than genuine ones, which might be a reflection on my social life. I have not been able to find any reliable statistics, but it seems that at least a material proportion of all calls and texts made over the networks are fraudulent.
This Bill seems to be a perfect opportunity to try to make life harder for the criminals who are exploiting mobile phone networks and services to perpetrate fraud. The best way in which to do this is to provide a real incentive for the telecommunications providers to prevent it; they should be liable for the penalties—although I hesitate to use that word, given what is happening in an hour or so—and for the losses incurred as a result of allowing the service to be misused, unless they have taken reasonable action to prevent it. At the moment, it is arguably in the telecommunications companies’ interests to allow the activities to continue, as they are being paid by the criminals for all the calls and texts.
Reading the Bill, I find myself unsure as to whether it covers these types of risks or not. I understand from a letter that I received from the Minister earlier today that it is not intended to, although I think that it could with not much change. Her letter, for which I am grateful, only refers to the issue of fraudulent calls and texts; it does not cover the other risks that I have mentioned. Clause 1 introduces a duty on communications networks and service providers to take measures to identify and reduce the risks of security compromises occurring. It then goes on to define what a security compromise is, with a pretty wide range of definitions. Among them, new subsection (2)(f) refers to
“anything that occurs in connection with the network or service and causes any data stored by electronic means to be … lost … unintentionally altered; or … altered otherwise than by or with the permission of the person holding the data”.
As far as I can see, nothing in the Bill limits security compromise to those that come from hostile states, and that is a good thing, since security compromise could well come from criminals. The risks that I have described do occur in connection with the network or the service, and they may cause electronically stored data to be lost or altered. So on my first reading, it appears that the risks that I have described may be covered or could easily be covered in the Bill if a suitable code of practice was issued.
In passing, on that subject, I share the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the codes of practice will not be subject to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.
If the security risks that I have described are not intended to be covered by the Bill, we are missing a golden opportunity to make it harder for criminals to use our communications networks and services to perpetrate fraud on consumers. The Government are planning to produce a fraud action plan, but not until after the spending review. In the meantime, people will continue to lose their money, with all the mental and personal impacts that brings. It may not currently be intended to do this, but this Bill with very little change could be used to cut off one of the major facilitators of fraud with very little delay. Would the Minister be willing to consider how the Bill could be amended to meet that goal, and would she be willing to meet to discuss what actions we can take to safeguard users of the services from criminal misuse of telecommunications networks or services?
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate. This Bill is, broadly speaking, uncontroversial. No one would seek to oppose legislation that makes our telecommunications networks in the UK more secure. Certainly, if one looks at the debates in the other place, amendments were very few and far between, and they were tweaking amendments rather than fundamental.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said about combating online scams; whether the Bill can be used as a method to test the Government’s resolve in combating this issue remains to be seen. I certainly recall when I was the telecoms Minister working closely with Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office to try to combat nuisance calls. There are a variety of factors in play in trying to combat this kind of plague. One is the willingness of the regulators to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty in carrying out prosecutions, and another is certainly technology solutions, which can and should be encouraged by all the operators.
The third—the noble Lord referred to the Government’s review of action on fraud—is a much wider landscape approach from the Government on how to combat this. For example—and this is no criticism of the police—it seems to me that we still have a Victorian police structure in the 21st century. We should be thinking about leaning in and recruiting cyber specialists far more effectively to work in the police force to combat these kinds of crimes, not simply bringing people to justice but combating this kind of work on the network.
I will begin with one of the elements that lies behind this Bill: the concern over Huawei and its presence in our telecoms network. Many noble Lords have set out strong views on Huawei and the Chinese industry in general during this debate. I was particularly struck by the excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Stroud. When I was a Minister, I worked closely with Huawei, in the sense that we had in place a protocol with the security services to check the kind of equipment Huawei was installing in the networks. It was a transparent process; nobody was pretending that Huawei was not involved in selling equipment to our telecoms providers, nor that it was not being installed in the UK telecoms networks. That equipment was reviewed in a very transparent way and Huawei was forced to put in place a UK board made up of UK citizens to supervise its work.
While I wholly condemn Chinese behaviour as far as the Uighurs and Hong Kong are concerned, one should be cautious in assuming that every piece of Chinese commercial activity is somehow linked to espionage. I certainly do not think that, when one of my children uses TikTok, they are somehow being caught by the Chinese state. There is some irony that we often debate these issues while looking at our iPhones, which of course are manufactured in China, or perhaps using a Dell laptop supplied by the Parliamentary Estate, which has been made in China as well. One must be open-eyed and transparent about this, but not assume that everything coming from China will undermine our national security. Nevertheless, I wholly agree with my noble friend that one of the problems with Huawei was that it was effectively an unfair competition. Our markets are much more open to foreign investment than the Chinese market, and Huawei was certainly heavily subsidised by the Chinese state, so a pushback in that sense is very welcome.
The key to this Bill is ensuring that we have secure telecoms infrastructure, and I echo the remarks of noble Lords about the general resilience of our infra- structure. It is not only state actors who can provide malign effects on it; we have only to look at the recent SolarWinds attack on a critical piece of US infrastructure to see how easy it is for criminal groups, sometimes tacitly supported by the states in which they reside, to attack our networks. To make those as robust and secure as possible must be an absolute priority for the Government as we move more and more into the digital age.
It is quite right that this Bill comes forward to put security duties on our telecoms companies for the first time. I note that the detail of those security duties will be contained in regulations and hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on how those regulations are progressing. I also note that Ofcom will take a key role in overseeing how those duties are fulfilled, working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre. I am delighted to see that Ofcom’s budget has been increased to take account of those new duties.
Given the recent political furore over Ofcom, this is a useful reminder that it is not a political regulator; it is a boring but essential regulator that carries out vital work to keep our network secure and our communication markets competitive. I hope the Government take that point on board and give Ofcom as much freedom as possible to carry on doing the excellent work it has done for some 20 years. Ofcom is working more and more with other regulators such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Competition and Markets Authority. This is partly out of necessity, because to hire the talent that these regulators need, they will sometimes now have to hire employees who work across all three regulators. It is an illustration of how regulation is becoming more and more intertwined.
With that in mind, I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on how Ofcom is working with other regulators to keep all our essential infrastructure secure—and with regulators across the world, because this affects us all, particularly western democracies. I also hope the important work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Livingston, on supply chain diversification will be leaned into. I particularly support his call for government-sponsored research into how open RAN networks can play a vital role.
Finally, can the Minister bring us up to date on how well new vendors are doing in coming into the market? With Huawei effectively expelled from our market over the next five years, I hope we will see many more European vendors able to take up the slack and provide the equipment that our infrastructure providers need.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, this Bill is generally welcomed and very well intentioned, but it really lacks any effective parliamentary or judicial oversight, as has been quite forcefully pointed out. I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord West, said on this issue. We should use the ISC for this. As regards the excuse that designating a vendor or something might leak too early, it will leak anyway—something as big as that will be all over the place in five minutes.
This is not without cost and pain, and we are already seeing it. The Government have already revised their target for rolling out full fibre from 100% coverage to only 85% by 2025. The disruption caused by a rule to, say, extract Huawei or anything from the network has far-reaching consequences. After all, way back at the end of the 1990s, I think, we gave the contract for redoing the BT 21st Century Network to Huawei and not Marconi. We bankrupted a British company and gave it to China. That decision was taken a long time ago, so it is embedded in all our ordinary telecoms at the moment—not 5G, but the ordinary stuff that our telecoms are running over. We must be careful about this revising down of our targets, because it will affect our global competitiveness. We must be careful not to cut off our nose to spite our face. It is very easy to take a high moral stand, but at the end of the day we also have to survive on the global stage.
What this Bill does may be very effective for blocking foreign access, in trying to ring-fence the UK, but we could also create a single point of failure if we are not careful. There are not many suppliers of equipment of the type that will run the backbone of the internet. We are basically talking about Cisco and Huawei; Samsung also has a whole load of stuff out there; there are a whole lot of others—such as Nokia, Juniper and Hewlett Packard Enterprise—but nothing is quite as big as Cisco and Huawei. One of our problems is knowing whether Cisco is okay; some of its components, such as motherboards and other things, are manufactured in China. With the global supply chain, it is not as simple as it seems.
The second thing that worries me is this assumption that, just because we do not have Chinese equipment in the UK network, we are safe. First, China is not necessarily the only one interested in what we get up to; when you get into trade wars, many people who may appear to be our allies are maybe not on our side entirely when we are negotiating international contracts, so we should be careful of that. The other thing is that, if we create a monolith with one supplier—it does not matter who it does not include—it is vulnerable. The way the internet works at the moment is that, if you have multiple suppliers sitting in Britain, it does not matter whether they are hostile or not. Routing over the internet is inherently vulnerable because of the way it is constructed. However, it splits your message up into lots of packets that go over different routes. If they are going through lots of different people’s equipment, it is impossible for any of them to get the whole message; if it is all with one supplier, there might be technical ways they could do it. Funnily enough, one of the better security solutions is to mix them all together and keep it that way.
Next, there is a lot about trying to have the right rules and regulations and all that, but ensuring best practice cannot guarantee network security. Our current communications network has grown like Topsy; it is a mixture and mishmash of digital infrastructures all sitting on top of a whole lot of analogue stuff. It is very complex, with lots of ill-defined interfaces sitting in there. If you are going to start ripping some of it out and say that we have to do it by a deadline, you need to know what is there before you do it. This means we will have to maintain very accurate and secure databases—otherwise that is a vulnerability—probably down to component level, but certainly batch level, of what is in there, so that if you suddenly discover a vulnerability somewhere, you can get the other stuff out as well. We must do this categorisation of our assets in the network. That in itself is a security risk because it is very interesting to a foreign supplier, so that part of it is very difficult.
As for Ofcom—I am interested in this—we need some further clarity on how it will interpret the legislation, impose penalties and all the bits and pieces like that. The manner in which it develops its role as regulator will be vital for it to be a success, and how it decides what the significant risks are will be very important. On my noble friend Lord Vaux’s point, I have been told by someone that Ofcom’s reach could be extended because the legislation is very generally written to cover services—for instance, they were talking about banking fraud—and public electronic systems. In fact, it could drag in non-telcos, because they are services. It is not just about the hardware and equipment behind it, though it all started off with Huawei. There is a lack of clarity.
Someone had a very good idea, which has been adopted for some fintech stuff, that we could maybe have sandpits, where new entrants to the market could develop new stuff—new equipment, et cetera—and try out their ideas in a realistic environment to make sure that they are okay and will work before they put them into the network, if it is a secure network. I think that is a very good idea. Another very good idea put to me is that we should have the assistance of an independent commissioner and a technical panel overseen by Parliament and the judiciary. It is needed here. This model is used by the ICO and would probably be very helpful, so I would like it considered.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I should perhaps declare my position as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. I will begin with a short list of things to agree with. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox—not currently in his place—and particularly his remarks about privacy. I associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. When we are talking about trade and commerce, we have to think about the human rights aspects as well. That and the environment, as in the Environment Bill, all interlinks together. The targeting of the Uighurs—the situation in what the locals called Altishahr—is a situation of genocide, and we simply cannot stand by.
To finish the tick list of issues that were covered in the other place and that a number of noble Lords have also covered, once again we find ourselves, as we do on pretty much every Bill, saying that there is not adequate scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s powers. Whether Ofcom will have the resources to complete the role foreseen for it in the Bill is a very familiar story. We also do not have sufficient consultation with devolved Governments written into the Bill.
However, I want to start today’s remarks with a bit of a longue durée perspective, an overview, because we are once again in the context of privatisation. We are talking about what used to a public service run for public good—our telecoms network—which was, for ideological reasons, handed over to the private sector through a privatisation that has been allowed to become a wild west. Now we are trying—to coin a phrase—to take back control of that wild west. It is increasingly clear, and the Government are acknowledging this by actions if not words, that telecoms are now an essential service or a utility just as much as water or energy supplies are, and that we need to think about these issues for a larger future and about running them for public good, not private profit.
I will focus particularly on Clause 1 of the Bill, which amends Section 105 of the Communications Act. The focus here is on compromising security. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, among others, talked about the idea of security being comprehensive. Indeed, new subsection (2)(a) says that a security compromise is
“anything that compromises the availability, performance or functionality of the network or service”.
To think about what might compromise our services, I invite noble Lords to look across at America right at this moment: there is a massive, record heat wave. To cite one set of figures, the city of Portland has had three days in which it has broken record temperatures—not by points of degrees but by degrees. Today, the top temperature in Portland is 46.6 degrees Celsius. For those who prefer a more old-fashioned system, like the Americans, that is 116 degrees Fahrenheit. The infrastructure is melting in a very literal sense. You have what are being described as non-linear and threshold effects, where systems go utterly, totally and completely down because they just cannot cope with the environmental conditions.
Looking back to new Clause 1(2)(a) on compromising
“the availability, performance or functionality of the network”,
I agree with Boris Johnson, who said as he was chairing the UN Security Council earlier this year that climate change is a threat to our security. It seems to me very clear that the Bill should tackle these kinds of issues. I ask the Minister: do the Government regard it in this way? If they do not, what other steps are the Government taking to tackle these issues?
I stress that I have seen this first hand, not just in distant structures. I happened to be in Lancaster a few days after it was affected by very serious floods—well, the flooding was not that serious; what was really serious was that it took out the city’s electricity supplies for about two and a half days. When I saw the people about a week or so later, the city was shocked about all the effects that no one had really thought of. Nearly all the student accommodation had electric security doors; with no electricity you have a massive access problem. In a flood, you normally put people into emergency accommodation in hotels, but with electronic key cards there is no access to hotel rooms without electricity. Of course, the cash machines went down, and the pumps did not work at petrol stations.
I come to a broader question about security and telecoms, and indeed our whole increasingly digitalised world. I think we are all agreed that this is a fairly small and modest Bill, but we also know that the Government are planning what is being described as an internet of things Bill; I believe it is called the product security and telecoms infrastructure Bill. These are big, existential issues about our security, our survival and the ability of our basic systems to function—to provide people with food, water and the essentials they need. I think this is an ideal time to ask the Government whether they have really considered how much IT, telecoms and digital integration we actually need. I refer here to the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup; he said we cannot assume that any attack will fail. The kind of breakdowns I am talking about are not necessarily an attack in those terms, but they can be absolutely disastrous, as Lancaster illustrated.
Yesterday, in debating the Environment Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talking about damage to the environment, said that the first question we should ask is: do we actually need the thing we are building that is destroying the environment? We really have to ask about the digitisation of our society, the incorporation of everything linked together through 5G. Do we actually need these linkages, and what vulnerabilities are they creating? That is the main point I want to make, but I shall pick up a couple of other small points.
I forget which noble Lord said that what we have now is a situation of market failure. The Government are saying explicitly, associated with the Bill, that they have a diversification strategy to see that we have more different producers and suppliers. Are the Government looking at direct research funding—direct support for that kind of diversification? Market failure has got us into the situation where there is very little diversity, and relying on the market to fix that is, I suggest, very difficult and will not necessarily be successful. I point out that if we go back to the origins of all the things that got us to this point today, it was government funding that created the TCP/IP protocol and that funded the people whose research created the world wide web. We really have to think about ensuring that we put government funds into things if we really believe that they are needed.
That is pretty well all I wanted to say, but I have one final thought, coming back to the issue of resilience. We are in a situation now of huge supply problems. We are talking about not allowing certain supplies into the country, but we have a global chip shortage. I am relying on anecdote here, but I have a friend who is a manager in a fairly large public service and who simply is not able to upgrade the wi-fi because it is impossible to get the technology, to buy the bits of kit needed to do that, because of the chip shortage. Going beyond anecdote, there was a report in the Financial Times quoting the major infrastructure manufacturing company, Flex, which says that this chip shortage is likely to continue for another year. We are stuck in a situation where we have very fragile, just-in-time, complex supply chains, we are saying there are companies we cannot use any more, and we are in a situation where resilience needs to be thought about a great deal more.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, one of the great advantages of speaking late in a debate is that virtually everything has been said. I just want to light on a couple of things that have been said but I think could be said again.
First, I welcome the Bill. It is a useful Bill, but I do not think we should exaggerate where it is going to take us. At most, it covers a few bases. I was very pleased to hear the contribution of my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because we do need to start looking much more carefully at the human rights and social practices in the countries we are buying from. The fact that it will take until 2027 for Huawei to be eliminated from our system shows just how interdependent we have become in this very small area, and how inter- dependent the whole world is becoming.
I was recently on a conference call with some people in Taiwan. One of the advantages that Taiwan has in its stand-off with China is Taiwan’s production of chips, just mentioned by the noble Baroness. The interdependence of this technological world is now really quite enormous. My concern, looking at the Bill, is that it is fine for us but it does not actually advance our security outside the United Kingdom.
Some years ago, when I was in a different party from the one I am in now, I was given the job of being defence spokesperson for the Labour Party in the European Parliament. If there were ever a non-job, that was it, because of course the European Parliament had no defence capacity whatever, and at that time the Labour Party thought that anything more advanced than a bow and arrow was not really an acceptable means of defence anyway. John Smith rescued me and I became, for my sins, the first leader of the European Parliament delegation to NATO—or the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, to be exact. One thing we had to look at there was the list of prohibited exports. If we are to safeguard our future, we will have to look again at getting like-minded countries together to look at how we can restrict the export of certain technology. It is going to be even more difficult now because technology is much more a worldwide thing.
There is a tremendous fragmentation of views in Europe. Germany still thinks it should be co-operating with China. It still thinks that the business side is more important than the human rights or the social side, but we have to bring the Germans back on board. We cannot force them; we do not have any levers any more. In fact, now that we are not in a place that is never mentioned any more in this Chamber, we do not even meet them in political co-operation. We do not meet them, and we never really understood how important it was that, on a regular basis, all our Ministers met European Ministers to exchange views, to keep up to date and just to keep knowing each another. We never seemed to grasp that and we have now lost it. Everything we do can move forward only if we can carry other people with us.
I make no excuse whatever for saying, as I have said in this Chamber several times before, that China is going to be the main threat, probably for the next 50 years, and it is going to get worse. We have to get ourselves a foreign policy that actually makes sense. A foreign policy that concentrates on a country with the GDP of Italy and the social organisation of, let us say, southern Italy—namely, Russia—is not the way forward. These people have to somehow be brought on board and that is what I, in my own small way in the Council of Europe, as a delegate, tried to do—to intervene in this huge debate that is going on in Russia: should we look west, should we look east? That is a debate, but at least it is a debate: it is not a debate in China.
If we look at the countries between the two—the “stans”—they are also countries that we have to put some diplomatic effort into. It is no good pretending that we do not know they are there; we have to put some effort into them. That is some way away from the Bill but it is part of what the Bill is about—trying to build a secure world. I would say, in the words of the old film, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” We have not really had a sustained cyberattack in this country. Our cashpoints have not stopped working yet. The computer system has not crashed completely yet, but the technology is almost there to make it happen, and that has to be part of our challenge.
I have great admiration for the Minister, but I question whether DCMS is the correct department of state to be looking at our future and our preparations to deal with the technological, technical challenges that lie ahead. I have a lot more confidence in looking at the noble Lord, Lord West, and the strategic and security services to lead on this measure than in DCMS, which I think has a very different job and I am not sure, frankly, is the right department to be handling this. Having said that, I look forward to helping my noble friend the Minister get the Bill through the House as a contribution—I think it will turn out to be a very small contribution—to the journey that we have to embark upon.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Balfe and I declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
I have four quick points for this stage of the debate. First, on diversification, it is clear that if there is a monopoly, duopoly or triopoly, it does not matter what the market is, the results are highly likely to be suboptimal, and that is what we see in our modern telecoms situation. Can my noble friend the Minister update the House on what is happening on the national telecoms lab and what is at the core of its mission? To build on the words of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I completely agree on the need for a telecoms sandbox and to build on the firms that would go through it. A scale box to follow on from that would seem an excellent idea for the United Kingdom. As he said, it has worked tremendously successfully in fintech, led by the Financial Conduct Authority, and could have a significantly positive impact on our telecoms business.
As many noble Lords have commented, cyber is the future, and that future is now—whether it comes from fraud by individuals or from state actors, it will become an increasingly invasive part of everything that we do. Does the Minister believe that we are doing everything that we can to leverage the cyber capabilities we have in this country, not just those excellent public resources at GCHQ and the NCSC but across the private sector? On that note, can she update the House on when the review of the Computer Misuse Act may be coming through and what positive impact it will have for all the people who work to try and keep us safe in cyber- space?
Other noble Lords have mentioned the levelling-up agenda, and mobile telephony is certainly not just a part but a critical part of that. If one does not have that connectivity or the skills to operate in that world, what hope is there of securing the employment, lives and social connections that everyone should be entitled to have a right to aspire to and achieve? I give one small specific example in terms of telecoms security. BT is due imminently to shut down the copper network, which is what we all consider to be landlines. Is my noble friend the Minister assured that everything is being done to protect all, not least vulnerable, citizens, particularly those currently at the sharp end of digital exclusion? What is being put in place to ensure that when that copper network is switched off—“retired” is the term being used—those citizens are not left at the extraordinary sharp end of exclusion? Imagine, for example, in the area of security, if they find themselves in need of a 999 service and need broadband to have a new connection, or they do not have the digital skills. What will occur if that is the case?
Finally, building on what my noble friend Lord Young talked about on the justiciability of decisions, does the Minister agree that if the Secretary of State had alongside him the NSC, that could only be positive in terms of the determinations that would be likely to come out of those deliberations?
Telecoms matter massively, as do all new technologies that we have in our hands. The crucial thing is that there are threats that we can know about, Rumsfeldians that we could go into and much that we cannot know about the future. But the most important thing that we can know is that the future is in our hands—all our hands.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this has been a thoughtful debate, with contributions from several former Ministers who have worked in this area, including the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Vaizey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. Their insights into the challenges here are welcome. As this Second Reading has shown, we have a problem and the Bill is put forward as the solution. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for laying out its provisions and intentions clearly.
The problem identified is the security risk potentially embedded in our telecoms systems, as exemplified by Huawei and other companies. Set against that, especially as we seek to make our own way outside the EU, is the Government’s aim that the UK should be at the forefront in science and technology, as laid out as the strategic direction for the UK in the integrated review. Therefore, there is a need to draw on the best telecoms systems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, clearly laid out.
However, in addition, balancing the ability to use whatever is best in the market globally and the need to protect our security is another vital strand. We cannot and must not use technology built on human rights abuses and thus become complicit in those abuses, rather than fight to address them. Noble Lords have set out the challenges, particularly from the rise of China, as well as the necessity of not using companies built on abuse. The experience of the middle of the 20th century marks a huge warning to us. We need only look at the history of the chemical and pharmaceutical giants that multiplied in size in Germany and were built on the appalling slave labour in the extermination camps.
We know that genocide and gross human rights abuses are not things of the past. We need to be ever vigilant. Up to 1.5 million Uighurs have been forcibly removed by the Chinese state by mass transit and put into forced labour camps in which components used in Huawei technology are made. The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Balfe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Stroud, all emphasised those important points. When the Minister winds up, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, requested, I should like her to outline what further action the Government will be taking that regard, given the international obligation to take such action once a country becomes aware that genocide may be occurring. We have signally failed to challenge China in regard to Hong Kong. What lessons have we drawn from that? Does the Minister agree that the Bill should not simply set technological advance against security but incorporate that concern? Can any other position be justified?
The key issue is whether the Bill achieves what it sets out to do and whether it brings its own risks and possible unintended consequences. As my noble friend Lord Fox and others have said in this Second Reading debate, we support the principles of the Bill. I note that the noble Lord, Lord West, the House of Lords member on the Intelligence and Security Committee, said that the Bill rightly seeks to address concerns first raised by his committee seven years ago in its report, Foreign Involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure. He feels that the Government are finally listening to those warnings. However, as with the National Security and Investment Act, he reports that his committee is
“concerned that the Bill does not provide for sufficient parliamentary oversight of these important new powers.”
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and others also warned on that.
The noble Lord, Lord West, made the sensible point that if the material is sensitive, it should be submitted to the ISC—that is the very purpose of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, just reiterated that. Alternatively, of course, we could just look behind bus stops in Kent and then gather it up and pass it to the noble Lord, Lord West.
The theme of scrutiny came through from other noble Lords. The Delegated Powers Committee has expressed reservations and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones went further in his criticism in this regard. The Bill gives Ofcom new powers to monitor and assess the security of telecoms providers, with very heavy fines if companies are deemed to have transgressed. It introduces new controls on the use of Huawei 5G equipment, including a ban on the purchase of new equipment from the end of 2021 and a commitment to remove all equipment from 5G networks by 2027.
My noble friend Lord Fox set the Bill several tests. He asked whether the Bill’s effect can be shown to shut out the technology it is meant to shut out. Can we be assured that the Government and Ofcom have the right powers, the necessary checks and balances, and the resources to do such work? When it comes to supply chain diversification, are we able to shut out Huawei and others but still have 5G in a timely manner? My noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others also noted the lack of diversity we face here—the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, identified it as a market failure—and the risks that this poses to the economic position of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Livingston, which sets out clearly the ways in which the UK might be able to develop this industry and how that requires working with other like-minded countries so that there are common standards and codes of practice. I look forward, as no doubt others do, to receiving the letter which the noble Lord suggests the Minister should write on the matter.
We have already heard concern about the powers given to the Government and to Ofcom. We also hear of concerns about the lack of clarity and transparency, which, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, is causing great concern within the industry. The criticism is that the proposed measures are either technically unworkable or damaging to the industry. One area which my noble friend flagged is in relation to providers whose networks are not based only in the United Kingdom and which would therefore find it challenging to engage as codes might be drawn up if there is no formal structure through which this might be done. My noble friend argues for a technical advisory board, and I note also that concerns were expressed about the flexibility and future-proofing of the Bill.
The Minister spoke of the Bill applying not just to one company, one country and one threat. That clearly must be the case. I note, for example, what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about the number of departments which might be relevant here and the newly pressing risks of cyber rather than conventional warfare, yet the absence of the DCMS Secretary of State from the National Security Council points to our being behind the curve.
Questions have been raised which will need to be considered in areas beyond the Bill. There is a wide challenge here, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and others emphasised. As we move to green technology, China is far ahead of us, controlling the raw materials as well as the technology needed to power it. That competitive advantage has probably been given rocket boosters by the pandemic, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, noted in relation to lateral flow tests. I took one the other day; it was a sort of strange little pregnancy test. Clearly, all this has brought economic benefit to the Chinese economy from our reliance on its traders for so much of the resources needed in the pandemic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, pointed out, we are moving into a different geopolitical landscape, although the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, put us as perhaps a little point in a very long historical process.
We are indeed in challenging times, out of the EU and unable therefore to strengthen our position as we could before as part of the richest trading bloc in the world. Instead, we need to find allies as the headwinds of changing superpower strengths buffet us. How closely then are we working with the EU on this as well as with the United States? The Bill marks a recognition of that challenging position, but in Committee and on Report there will no doubt be challenges as to whether it can deliver that security and moral compass which the Government claim, at the same time as we face major financial pressures, out of the EU and recovering from the pandemic. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, new technologies have long transformed the way we work, live and travel, but our experiences during the pandemic have upped the ante on the degree to which we rely on telecommunications networks. Today we have heard an enlightening and probing debate in which noble Lords have considered the number one priority of any Government: our national security.
The risk we face is as significant as it is real. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, spoke with insight about the need for agility and adaptability to meet the risks that we face in a resilient manner. The most recent UK Cyber Security Breaches Survey found that 62% of information and communications companies surveyed identified breaches or attacks in just the last 12 months, compared with 46% across all sectors. Many of us have first-hand experience of these security risks, as described in the Bill’s impact assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, thoughtfully brought that reality to life by describing the horrors that so many people face, day in, day out, which will be very familiar to many of us in this House.
When O2 suffered a major network failure in 2018 due to an expired software certificate, over 32 million users in the United Kingdom had their data network go down for up to 21 hours. In 2015, hackers targeted TalkTalk, stealing the personal data of over 1 million customers. In the same year, security was undermined when internet traffic for BT customers, including a UK defence contractor that helps deliver our nuclear warhead programme, was illegally diverted to servers in Ukraine. Understandably, these incidents and many others generate deep unease and a lack of national and individual security, which the Bill must address.
We can reflect that a sector that should have been subject to rather more attention over a decade ago is now the subject of this Bill. During this period we have lacked a telecoms industrial strategy and have seen a focus on foreign investors over and above our national security. Since 2010, successive Governments have allowed the sector to be dominated by a high-risk vendor, taking us from what were golden times to the current ice age. Regrettably, competition on price rather than security has become the order of the day, while security has been left to the market.
As the impact assessment identifies, the telecoms industry provides opportunities for new and wide-ranging applications, business models and increased productivity, whereby 5G will be used for everything, from autonomous cars to remote medical examination and health monitoring. This is crucial. Clearly, we will not achieve the Government’s aim of becoming a science and tech superpower by 2030 without it.
Let us also remember that the complex UK telecoms industry contributes £32 billion to the economy and directly provides nearly a quarter of a million jobs. It is therefore important that we legislate for the Government to have the power to act to prevent dependency on high-risk vendors such as Huawei, and to recognise the blurring of the lines in the grey zone, where cyber- attacks on critical infrastructure will become, regrettably, increasingly regular.
This Bill is a necessary step and, in general, we welcome it. However, I have some words of caution, many of which chime with the themes highlighted during this debate. There cannot be a scattergun approach to security, and it is the absence of a joined-up approach that I want to pursue first. I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Young, raised points about the number of departments that telecoms security touches and the need to resolve this interface in a co-ordinated fashion. I hope that the Minister can explain how this will be resolved and how this Bill interacts with the National Security and Investment Act, which recently passed through this House. How will the Government’s stated intention of having complementary regimes that protect telecommunications’ critical national infrastructure from national security threats be achieved?
The Government have said that the National Security and Investment Act was needed as the Tele- communications (Security) Bill does not extend to investments in the communications providers themselves or investments in other infrastructure used to provide communications. It also cannot prevent the acquisition of vendors by hostile actors. To this end, are the Government actively considering further redrafting of the communications supply chain definition, potentially listing the specific components of the supply chain that should be caught? When will we see the final sector definition for the communications sector?
Concerns have been expressed today, which I share, about what is not in the Bill as much as what is in it. The exclusion of the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee from oversight of the measures in the proposed legislation, despite its remit in relation to national security, is baffling at best and deliberate at worst. As my noble friend Lord West so ably highlighted, this came up in the National Security and Investment Act and yet the relevant parliamentary committee is well and truly parked out of sight. It is hard not to suggest an unhealthy aversion by the Government to the committee since failing to secure the post of chair for their preferred candidate, which, if so, would be a failure of duty to do the right thing. On the matter of scrutiny, I was interested in the thoughtful considerations from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and I am sure these matters will be debated further.
On the continuing theme of what is missing, diversity of suppliers is needed at different points of the chain with sufficient support for the UK’s own start-ups. However, the Bill does not even mention supply chain diversification or the diversification strategy, even though we all agree that we cannot have a robust and secure network with only two service providers, which is the number that we will have left once Huawei is removed from our networks. Support for Britain’s start-ups is needed to deliver this diversity, but the Government’s investment of £250 million will surely not be enough. As the Science and Technology Committee has called for, will the Government produce an action plan with clear targets and timeframes for how that funding will be spent?
This Bill provides a vast and continuing expansion of Ofcom’s remit. It also gives the regulator sweeping new powers and responsibilities. However, Ofcom lacks experience in national security. These changes will demand the recruitment of people with specialist skills and the required level of security clearance. How will this be handled? The impact assessment states that the cost of monitoring compliance for Ofcom is up to £49.4 million from now up to 2029. Can the Minister assure the House that Ofcom will have the relevant resources?
The security of our telecoms network sits firmly within an international context, as my noble friend Lord Maxton said. As the impact assessment states:
“The most significant cyber threat to the UK telecoms sector comes from states. The UK Government has publicly attributed malicious cyber activity against the UK to Russia and China as well as North Korea and Iranian actors”.
This concern is clearly shared with our key allies, as confirmed in the recent NATO summit’s communiqué.
This Bill was published in November—before the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy had concluded. The review states:
“Under the provisions of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, supported by the 5G supply chain diversification strategy, we will … work with partners, including the Five Eyes, to create a more diverse and competitive supply base for telecoms networks.”
Can the Minister advise how this work is proceeding? How many companies in our supply chain sector have Russian or Chinese owners?
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made a powerful intervention, echoed by other noble Lords, about the need for due diligence in respect of human rights—something that has been of great and continuing concern to this House. The continuing persecution of the Uighur Muslims and their plight shames the world. I am sure that the Minister will wish to reflect on this matter.
In the course of this debate, your Lordships have heard much about Huawei being the perfect illustration of why this Bill is needed. We support the action to protect the UK from the threats presented by this high-risk vendor that has huge strategic significance. As a Chinese company it could, under China’s national intelligence law of 2017, be ordered to act in a way that is harmful to the UK, and the Government state that,
“the Chinese State (and associated actors) have carried out and will continue to carry out cyber attacks against the UK and our interests”.
Despite this clarity, the telecoms supply chain review of 2018 recommended that Huawei equipment should be removed only from the sensitive part of the core network and could still make up a maximum of 35% of the non-core systems with a deadline of 2023.
In 2020, UK telecoms companies were latterly told by the Government that they would be banned from buying Huawei’s 5G equipment from January 2021 and that the Government want complete removal of Huawei equipment from our 5G networks no later than 2027—as we have heard, at a cost of £2 billion and a delay to 5G rollout by two to three years. Can the Minister indicate how the UK is going to benefit from the costly debacle of ripping out Huawei?
On spreading the risk, the Government’s vendor diversity task force said that the UK must ensure that smaller telecoms equipment makers become key suppliers of Britain’s 5G mobile phone networks once kit from Huawei is stripped out of the infrastructure. It said that smaller equipment manufacturers should provide 25% of the kit used in 5G networks. Have the Government accepted this target? We cannot end up in a similar situation again as we saw with Huawei.
This Bill must be future-proofed and provide for a horizon-scanning function to identify emerging threats and potential weaknesses in UK telecoms providers’ asset registers. We will be seeking amendments to the Bill that fill in the many missing gaps and will work across all parties to do so. As I have said, it is as much about the glaring omissions as it is about what the Bill contains. The UK cannot end up in another costly security debacle as we did with Huawei. The Government need to look to the future rather than letting it continue to overtake us. Let us hope that this Bill can do that job.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this rich debate for their contributions, for the warm welcome they offered the Bill, and for the way in which, in very different ways, they highlighted the importance of the issues which the Bill seeks to address.
Today’s debate has been wide-ranging. We have debated the principles and the practice of the Bill and we have touched on a number of issues that are beyond its scope. I shall start my closing remarks by focusing on those matters that speak directly to the Bill, as well as those that are closely adjacent to it, such as diversification, before moving on, if, as I hope, time permits, to other matters raised in the debate. Some of the issues raised sit beyond my department’s remit, but I will do my best to respond to them and will write to all noble Lords on any matters that time does not permit me to address today. I stress that I and my officials are very open to continuing these discussions in more detail ahead of Committee.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said at Second Reading in the other place, the Bill raises the security bar across the board and protects us against a whole range of threats. Although there may be disagreement on some points in the Bill, I welcome the fact that it clearly has strong support in this House and, as we saw, the other place. We are all committed to putting the UK’s national security interests first.
Before I go into the detail of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, rightly asked how it fits with wider regulation of critical national infrastructure. This is indeed one of a number of measures that the Government are taking to protect the security and integrity of that infrastructure. So, while this Bill focuses on telecoms security, there is already a range of regulations governing the security of other critical sectors, each tailored to different risks. The Bill will complement those pre-existing regulations by ensuring the security and resilience of the public telecoms networks on which our critical sectors rely.
The recently enacted National Security and Investment Act, to which the noble Baroness referred, empowers the Government to scrutinise, impose conditions on or, as a last resort, block foreign investment wherever there is an unacceptable risk to Britain’s national security. Rather than addressing investment, the Bill would enable the Government to protect our networks from risks posed by vendors who supply, provide or make available goods, services or facilities to public telecommunications providers. Once it is passed, the Bill will work alongside the National Security and Investment Act to protect our networks from threats, both now and in the future. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham also asked how different government departments were co-ordinating their policy responses in this area. I will take up his kind invitation to write to him, and will of course copy other noble Lords into my response.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lady Stroud, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, all asked how we were managing the risk posed by Huawei in the interim, ahead of the Bill becoming law. The Government have always considered Huawei to pose a relatively high risk to the UK’s telecom networks compared with other vendors. There has been a risk mitigation strategy in place since Huawei first began to supply equipment to the UK’s public telecoms providers.
The Government have announced extensive advice to manage the security risk posed by Huawei, based on the analysis of our world-leading experts at the National Cyber Security Centre. The Secretary of State has announced advice that providers should remove all Huawei equipment from 5G networks by the end of 2027 and, in order to clearly set out the pathway to zero, he also announced advice that providers should stop procuring new 5G equipment from Huawei after 31 December 2020 and stop installing Huawei equipment in 5G networks after September 2021. Together, all this advice will protect our networks from the risks posed by Huawei. Once passed, and subject to the relevant consultation requirements, the Bill will enable the Government to give legal effect to all this advice.
My noble friend Lady Stroud asked about other high-risk vendors. The Bill responds to the threats and risks that we outlined in the telecoms supply chain review. It gives us the ability to manage any high-risk vendor, both now and in future. We have named Huawei and ZTE as high-risk vendors, but we will continue to keep the presence of high-risk vendors under review.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about the role, resources and capacity of Ofcom. We are confident that Ofcom will have the capability and resources to undertake its expanded role, although we recognise the competitive market for recruitment in this area. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Bill places a new, general duty on Ofcom to ensure that providers comply with their new security duties. We are working closely with Ofcom to ensure that it has the required resources to meet its new responsibilities, and we will keep that under review.
I shall now cover the issues relating to scrutiny in the Bill. The first of these relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to issue designation notices and designated vendor directions. This issue was discussed at length in the other place throughout the passage of the Bill, and more recently was referred to by the Constitution Committee, and I will address the remarks of both that committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the recommendation from the Constitution Committee to increase oversight of the Bill’s powers by making them fall within the remit of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I can reassure noble Lords that the Secretary of State will use the power to issue designation notices and designated vendor directions only when it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security and where the requirements to be imposed are proportionate. The Bill already contains effective mechanisms for oversight of the Secretary of State’s use of the powers to give a designated vendor direction or designation notice.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay copies of designation notices and designated vendor directions before Parliament. This will provide Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise the use of these powers. On very rare occasions, the Secretary of State may choose not to lay a designation notice or direction before Parliament, because to do so would be contrary to the interests of national security. Where this is the case, the DCMS Select Committee will be able to view such directions and notices.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has responsibility for reviewing the use by public authorities, such as intelligence agencies, police and local authorities, of the powers in the Investigatory Powers Act. However, the Investigatory Powers Act regime is not directly comparable with the new powers and framework set out by the Bill. Oversight of the Investigatory Powers Act regime by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is considered appropriate because of the potential intrusion into the private lives of individuals as a result of the use of covert powers. The national security powers in this Bill are very different from those in the Investigatory Powers Act: they are focused on protecting public telecoms networks and services from the threats posed by high-risk vendors.
The noble Lord, Lord West, the noble Baronesses, Lady Merron and Lady Northover, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and others raised the issue of scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord West, and all other members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the important work they do. We recognise the importance of effective scrutiny of the use of the Bill’s powers, and I am happy to correct the impression that the noble Lord, Lord West, suggested—that the Government want to avoid scrutiny in the Bill. That is why, as I said, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay copies of designation notices and designated vendor directions before Parliament, unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of national security. I referred to circumstances where this might be possible in my remarks on the advice of the Constitution Committee.
As noble Lords are aware, the activities of DCMS are not within the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee. That committee’s remit extends to the intelligence agencies and other government activities related to intelligence or security matters, as set out in its memorandum of understanding. But the advice of the intelligence agencies will not be the only factor that the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding what is proportionate to include in a designated vendor direction. As well as the advice of the National Cyber Security Centre, the Secretary of State will consider, among others, the economic impact, cost to industry and impact on connectivity of the requirements in any designated vendor direction.
The ISC does not have a remit to consider non-security issues, such as the economic and connectivity implications of the requirements in designated vendor directions, but the DCMS Select Committee can consider those wider impacts. That is why, despite my noble friend Lord Balfe’s caution in this regard, we believe the DCMS Select Committee is the correct and appropriate body to see copies of designation notices and designated vendor directions that are not laid before Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham asked whether a designation notice or designated vendor direction is justiciable. Designated vendor directions and designation notices are subject to ordinary judicial review principles. However, the Secretary of State will issue designation notices and designated vendor directions only where they are necessary in the interests of national security and where the requirements in the direction are proportionate. As I mentioned, there are exceptions, which we expect to be rare, where it could be harmful to national security to lay a direction before Parliament, for example where doing so would expose particular security vulnerabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the delegated powers in the Bill and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as did my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The committee has made one recommendation relating to the power to issue codes of practice about security measures. I am sure that the House will appreciate that we need some time to consider the recommendation. We will respond once we have done that.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friends Lady Morgan and Lord Vaizey, raised issues about the Government’s work on diversification. Although this is not a matter that the Bill speaks to directly, as your Lordships pointed out, I am delighted to address it. The Government recognise the importance of a diverse supply chain for creating a resilient national telecoms network, which is why we published the 5G diversification strategy alongside this Bill. That takes forward the Government’s commitment in the telecoms supply chain review to respond to the lack of diversity in the supply chain. We are leading the way in solving this through our ambitious diversification strategy.
The diversification task force, led by my noble friend Lord Livingston of Parkhead, has now concluded its initial work. Its findings and recommendations were published on 20 April. As my noble friend Lord Young pointed out, they raise the opportunity for our businesses in this area to win new markets through the creation of shared standards. The Government will respond to the task force’s findings and set out our next steps in this ambitious programme this summer. My noble friend Lord Holmes asked for an update on our UK telecoms lab. We will be able to say more on that later this year, but we plan to respond to all of the priorities raised in the very helpful report from the diversification task force.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked for a definition of “incumbent suppliers”. The diversification strategy defines them as those present in the network that are not high-risk vendors, which therefore would include non-UK businesses such as Nokia and Ericsson.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about our engagement with business. We continue to engage regularly and closely with public telecom providers, including the largest companies, such as BT, and the trade bodies representing small businesses. Their feedback has been invaluable in our policy development. We will consult with them further on the draft code of practice after Royal Assent to ensure that all those affected can make their voices heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, asked about our international engagement. We have engaged with partner countries throughout the drafting of this Bill and will continue to do so once it has passed. As he rightly pointed out, our networks face similar challenges to those of networks in other countries. It therefore makes absolute sense to find international solutions to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, obviously has a similar social life to mine. I definitely get more fraudulent calls than I do any other type of communication. As I wrote to him, this Bill is not intended to address the extremely important issues that he raised. The Government are exploring a range of different measures aimed at tackling criminal abuse of the telecommunications network, including fraud. This work is led by the Home Office. I am happy to meet with him to discuss it further if that is helpful or co-ordinates him being in touch with the right colleagues at the Home Office.
Turning to the issues of human rights, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the compliance of the ministerial statement on the face of the Bill with the Human Rights Act. As printed, I made a statement under Section 19 of that Act that:
“In my view the provisions of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”
as defined by Section 1 of the Act. I stand by my statement. I do not think there are any provisions in this Bill that are incompatible with the convention rights. The statement is about the content of the Bill. The noble Lord has implied that actions of another country might bring the Bill’s compatibility into question, but I think that is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the statement.
Many of your Lordships rightly raised issues of human rights in China, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Merron, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friends Lady Stroud and Lord Balfe. I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his ongoing commitment to standing up for human rights around the world, including in Xinjiang. The Government stand in complete solidarity with him and the eight others who were sanctioned by China. This House has debated these issues at length and rightly so, as they are important. The Government share the noble Lord’s serious concern about the human rights situation in Xinjiang. Indeed, he recently secured a Question for Short Debate on this topic, to which my noble friend the Minister of State for South Asia and the Commonwealth responded.
It is because this issue is so important that we have, as a Government, taken a wide range of actions this year and I cannot accept his suggestion of complacency on the part of the Government. The UK Government have led international efforts to hold China to account for its human rights violations in Xinjiang. We led the first two statements on Xinjiang at the UN and have utilised our diplomatic network to raise the issue up the international agenda. Most recently, on 22 June, the UK joined 43 other countries at the UN Human Rights Council to condemn China’s human rights violations in Xinjiang and Tibet, as well as the deterioration of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others. On 13 June, the G7 leaders’ communiqué called on China to
“respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang”.
Noble Lords will be aware that in January the Foreign Secretary announced a package of measures to help ensure UK businesses and the public sector are not complicit in human rights violations or abuses in Xinjiang. Those measures include robust and detailed new guidance to businesses, a review of export controls as they apply to China, a commitment to introduce financial penalties under the Modern Slavery Act and increasing support for UK government bodies to exclude suppliers complicit in violations.
I know the noble Lord is particularly interested in hearing more about the review of export controls. He will be aware that export controls are already applied to a range of goods which may be used for internal repression or to breach human rights, as set out in the Export Control Act 2002 and accompanying secondary legislation. The review announced by the Foreign Secretary in January will ensure that we have captured the full range of goods as applicable to the current situation in Xinjiang and will determine which additional specific products will in future be subject to export controls. The Government will report back to Parliament on the outcome of the review in due course.
I also note the Private Member’s Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, regarding the duty on businesses to produce modern slavery statements. The Government have already committed to strengthening Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and I know that the noble Lord engages regularly with the Home Office on this matter. I can reassure all your Lordships that tackling modern slavery continues to be a priority for this Government. This is why the Government announced a review of our modern slavery strategy earlier this year.
A new strategy will cover our cross-government response, including how business and government can effect change through their supply chains. In September 2020, the Government committed to take forward an ambitious package of measures to strengthen the Act. As I have mentioned, this was followed in January 2021 by a commitment to introduce financial penalties for organisations that fail to meet their statutory obligations to publish modern slavery statements under the Act. Legislation to take these reforms forward will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.
The amendment tabled and adopted during the passage of the Trade Act further highlights that the Government take these issues seriously. The amendment ensures that a debate and vote in Parliament can happen in response to credible reports, expressed by a responsible Committee, about genocide in a country with which we are proposing a new free trade agreement. I can now confirm that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place has agreed to be charged with this role, subject to agreement by the House. Discussions are still ongoing in the other place and will begin in this House when there is a willing Committee.
This Bill, however, is focused on the security of the UK public telecoms network and services. It is not the right legislative vehicle to address concerns about human rights and modern slavery. Clause 16 makes it clear that designation notices can be issued to vendors only where the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security. The Government consider that the Secretary of State should be required to assess national security as strictly about the security of our nations.
I apologise to noble Lords: I know that I have overrun but it was a rich debate. I hope noble Lords will accept that it was worth addressing some of the important points raised. I look forward very much to working with your Lordships across the House to pass this important legislation. As I have said, the Bill will create one of the toughest regimes for telecoms security in the world. It will enable us to protect our critical national infrastructure and shield our networks for years to come. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, gave the Government a helpful and powerful challenge: to be forward-looking as we think through this legislation; to recognise the need for a balance between cost, resilience and risk; and to adopt an approach that combines agility and adaptability. Again, I invite noble Lords who wish to talk about any particular issues related to the Bill to contact me or my officials, and I look forward to debating this further in Committee.
Republic of Cameroon: Economic Partnership Agreement
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:39 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Grantchester’s Motion - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 239 - Lord Grantchester’s Motion disagreed.
Lord Grantchester
That this House regrets the Economic Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Cameroon given (1) the human rights abuses committed by President Biya’s regime, and (2) the lack of parliamentary scrutiny before trading arrangements came into force on 1 January.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the International Agreements Committee
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for tabling his Motion on Ghana, and I welcome the debate taking place on both of these today. I will necessarily be focusing my remarks on Cameroon, leaving him to focus on the partnership agreement with Ghana, given the importance of tonight.
We have had a very busy couple of weeks of trade developments: CPTPP negotiations launching, an Australian deal being partially announced and the TRA’s recommendations on steel imports coming out. I want to make clear that we on this side want good trade deals that grow the economy, stimulate sectors and protect livelihoods and standards, reflecting the modern approach to trade that goes wider than mere economic exchange. As we ask questions and debate agreements, I want the Government always to remember that.
The Government do not seem to appreciate not only how scrutiny of trade deals should change to reflect the new status of the United Kingdom having left the EU, with all the constitutional arrangements that need to reflect that, but that trade deals need to reflect the new trading realities in the world today, which is undergoing a climate crisis against the backcloth of the pandemic, and where respect for rights, minorities and sustainability needs to become ingrained. These points were repeatedly made during the passage of the Trade Bill through your Lordships’ House last year, when many questions were asked about the future trading policy of this Government. It was repeatedly stated that the Trade Act referred only to rollover deals, with the Government refusing to answer how they would address and adapt the CRaG process to account for these sentiments. I remind the Minister that the CRaG process was set as appropriate for the UK being a member state of the EU.
In the rush forward with these new developments, a theme can be seen and identified where Ministers appear to be prioritising trade at any cost without any clear policies or moral compass, whether that means abandoning the fishing industry, selling out British farmers, failing British steel or abandoning British families. I believe that Cameroon fits into that pattern. Although accounting for only 0.1% of total UK trade, this deal means much more for human rights, scrutiny and future trade agreements.
The first part of my Motion necessarily focuses on human rights violations. Government forces have committed widespread abuse across Cameroon’s anglophone region since 2017. The UN estimates that 3,500 people have died and 700,000 have been displaced. Suspected violations include extrajudicial killings, torture, the destruction of property, fair trial violations and inhumane and degrading conditions of detention. Events in Cameroon have been painstakingly logged by the Faculty of Law at the University of Oxford, with one media report from 20 May 2019 stating that
“the military came in as the mother was struggling to prepare food for the family … The soldiers came in … and shot the child in the back of the head.”
The report goes on to call on the international community to “help us”.
This incident is heartbreaking but not isolated. Human Rights Watch has said that government forces committed widespread human rights abuses throughout 2020, and yet, at the end of that year, our Government agreed to roll over trade arrangements with the regime responsible. Can the Minister simply tell the House why? This was in spite of the Foreign Secretary saying in January that we should not be engaged in free trade negotiations with countries abusing human rights, and in spite of the Minister saying in this House in December 2020, again in February this year, and yet again in March, that trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights.
Clearly, the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and actions is vast, and that is also becoming a clear hallmark of this Government. By signing this agreement, the UK is actually moving in the opposite direction to the US and more enlightened trading relationships. In January 2020, the US terminated Cameroon’s eligibility for trade preference benefits due to the Biya regime’s persistent violations of internationally recognised human rights. Let us not be confused: this was under the previous US Administration. If President Trump can act, why cannot Secretary of State Truss?
On 1 January this year, the same day that the trading arrangement was rolled over by our Government, a unanimous United States Senate resolution was passed criticising the Biya regime for abuses. Just as a media report called on the international community to act, the Senate resolution urged other countries to join a collective effort to put pressure on Cameroon through the use of available diplomatic and punitive tools. The Government will recognise that this includes trade. Your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee has called on the Government to set out the process they plan to monitor human rights compliance that could put Cameroon in material breach of the essential elements in this agreement. Can the Minister explain this process today?
Can the Minister confirm that all future explanatory memorandums to trade deals will include information about significant issues of concern raised by devolved Administrations and how they have been addressed? Looking to future arrangements, can the Minister also explain the UK’s policy on the inclusion of human rights clauses and how they will be reflected in every deal? The recent Norway and Iceland treaty contained no such clauses. While I am not worried specifically about those countries, I am worried about what precedent this sets for agreements with the Gulf states and Brazil.
This returns us to the focus on parliamentary scrutiny. On 27 December, the UK and Cameroon agreed through a memorandum of understanding to bridge the gap between the end of the post-Brexit transition period and a provisional application to maintain the effects of the EU-Central Africa EPA and apply the tariff preferences of the UK-Cameroon EPA, but the MoU was not published until four months later. The Government announced a new deal signed on 9 March but, once again, Parliament did not get to see the text until 20 April, with your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee being able to consider it only on 26 May.
Under challenge from the shadow Secretary of State Emily Thornberry, the Secretary of State replied in a letter dated 7 June that “on this occasion, I do not believe a debate is appropriate”. She referred to a debate having taken place on the continuity agreement in Parliament back when the existing EU agreement was negotiated with Cameroon, but that was only a 14-minute debate back in 2010, with open conflict against the English-speaking population in Cameroon beginning in 2017.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the many times that he has committed the Government to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I know that he will remember doing so during the Trade Bill and in answering many Questions and making Written Ministerial Statements. Indeed, his pronouncements have been codified into the “Grimstone rule”. I know that he is committed to good governance, even under the outdated CRaG process.
It is disheartening to witness the actual interpretation of scrutiny arrangements by this Government—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am really sorry, but we have a time-limited debate; you will have to finish.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the take-note Motion in my name and in so doing declare an interest, in that I co-chair the All-Party Group on Trade out of Poverty, and through that I co-chaired a commission on trade and development in the Commonwealth.
I thank the Government Whips’ Office for facilitating this debate. I have been pleased to work very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in ensuring that this joint debate takes place. Perhaps he did not have the opportunity to say so, but if he seeks to test the opinion of the House on his Motion to Regret, we on these Benches will support him, for reasons that I will outline in a moment.
My Liberal Democrat colleague Sarah Olney secured an Adjournment debate on the UK agreements with Cameroon and Ghana in the Commons on 9 June. Had she not done so, the Commons would not have debated them at all. Sarah Olney and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised human rights concerns in Cameroon. He raised them very well, and I need not repeat what was said, as I agree with his views. I have been following these abuses with despair since I visited, a number of years ago, the Africa group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, where I met both anglophone and francophone MPs from Cameroon.
I am not alone in wanting the Government to have taken a less passive role in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, on 1 January 2020 the US took the decision to terminate Cameroon’s eligibility for the trade preferences under its African Growth and Opportunity Act. However, the UK Government seem to disagree with the United States that there should be restrictions on access to trade with them. Can the Minister explain why the UK Government disagree with the US Government?
In his reply to the International Agreements Committee’s report, the Minister in the Commons stated:
“Our long-standing relationship with Cameroon allows us to have open, candid discussions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/21; col. 1070.]
He cited the Minister for Africa’s meetings and said that the UK is monitoring the situation. Today, I ask for clarity, as I did in our debates on the Trade Bill, on what processes the UK has in place to transparently judge human rights compliance. In the UK-Cameroon agreement there is a so-called nuclear option of the essential elements clauses for human rights violations. However, we still have no idea what escalation-triggering mechanisms the UK would seek to use in any successor agreement, or indeed any agreement at all. My frustration is that the Government, having been given many opportunities through the Trade Bill, have resolutely refused to publish a trade and human rights policy which sets out human rights criteria, observation and monitoring mechanisms, public reporting, and a staged process of escalation that could lead to suspension or removal of preferential access to UK markets.
During the passage of the Trade Bill, I stated repeatedly—and, indeed, had amendments to the Bill referring to—the need for the UK to have a successor to the Cotonou agreement. On 15 April the EU and 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries agreed a replacement to the Cotonou agreement, and the UK has been left in a vacuum. The new EU-OACPS partnership agreement covers the priority areas of democracy and human rights, sustainable economic growth and development, climate change, human and social development, peace and security, and migration and mobility. It has a structure, including an ACP-EU council of ministers, a committee of ambassadors, a development finance co-operation committee, a ministerial trade committee and a joint ACP-EU parliamentary assembly, but there is nothing from the UK. Can the Minister therefore explain what the Government’s intention is? Are we to have a UK agreement with the ACP states?
On trade facilitation, I agree with the Minister when he says, frequently, that these agreements mean nothing if they cannot be operationalised. The reality for developing countries is that we have added more burdens on them for continuity of trade and have committed ourselves to supporting their implementation, but the Government have not said how.
On Cameroon, paragraph 3 of Article 9, on the financing of the partnership, states:
“The UK will provide funding through mechanisms such as the UK Prosperity Fund to support implementation of this Agreement.”
But a letter of 3 June from the Foreign Secretary to the International Development Committee in the Commons states that Cameroon will receive no—that is, zero—bilateral development assistance from the UK in 2021-22. What precisely is the support of the UK in this treaty obligation? Similarly, for Ghana, paragraph 2 of Article 4 states that
“supporting the implementation of this Agreement shall be among the priorities.”
Paragraph 5 commits the UK to providing
“funding to support implementation of this Agreement with a view to ensuring a simple, efficient and quick implementation.”
I hope that that is not simply a reference to an existing UK-Ghana partnership for jobs and economic transformation scheme, which I saw elements of for myself when I visited Accra. Can the Minister confirm that funding for this has not been cut, what new funding exists to honour this treaty obligation, and over what timescale?
The burden on Ghana and its Fairtrade farmers was felt immediately at the end of the transition period when the UK applied tariffs on imported goods. Some of the goods were turned away because the UK ports were not ready. I had warned of this before the end of the transition, when the Minister said there was no problem, and afterwards I raised it in the House, as the IAC report has highlighted, and the Government said that it could not have been helped. There was a problem and it could have been prevented.
In response to the justified conclusion of the IAC on the lack of a bridging mechanism to avoid this, the Minister said in his letter that Her Majesty’s Government
“could not use a bridging mechanism to maintain Ghana’s duty free quota free access during this period, as negotiations on the agreement were ongoing.”
But the department’s letter is directly contradicted by its information note of December 2020, which states in paragraph 5:
“Where we or our treaty partners are unable to fully ratify or provisionally apply an agreement, we will seek to give effect to the preferences under the signed UK agreements (or, if necessary, under the existing EU agreements) through alternative bridging mechanisms.”
So, as the department states itself, it could have bridged the existing EU mechanisms but chose not to. Can the Minister say why it did not?
Finally, by definition these agreements are already out of date, but the UK has not signalled any clear intention of renewal or expansion. I hope that the Minister will respond positively by giving a clear signal of the successor agreements and that he will find time to meet me, members of the all-party group and other colleagues who believe that there is great potential in our trade with these countries, specifically Ghana. There are barriers to overcome but by working together, we should be able to realise that potential.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I declare my interests as listed in the register and that, in my time as Minister for Africa, I had the chance to visit both countries and to meet President Paul Biya and President Nana Akufo-Addo.
The benefits of free trade are absolutely huge and although the figures for our bilateral trade with Ghana, which is £1.2 billion, and with Cameroon, which is £200 million, may sound quite large, when you compare this to, for example, our bilateral trade with the Republic of Ireland, which is £70 billion, our total bilateral trade with sub-Saharan Africa is only £40 billion, so the scope for an increase in that is absolutely huge. I suggest that we have to take these really fast-growing economies more seriously. I welcome the focus on Africa in the recent integrated review of security, defence and development, because these are some of the countries where there are growing middle-income parts of the population and other countries are aggressively using their influence to try to build their trade, particularly China, Russia, Turkey and Brazil. We need to act quickly and these rollover treaties are an incredibly important part of that.
I absolutely take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. What a huge contrast there is with Ghana, which has transitioned from one regime to another with the minimum of fuss and been an exemplar for smooth democracy in west Africa. In fact, I had the pleasure of meeting Nana Akufo-Addo many times as the result of the partnership between his party, the NPP, and my party, the Conservative Party, over many years. We were called to the Bar at roughly the same time. He worked incredibly hard for his position, persevered and fought a number of elections. On many occasions he accepted the result and eventually he won the prize as president. What a contrast with Paul Biya, who we all know runs what is effectively a dictatorship. There have been repeated human right abuses over a number of years and, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out, there has been a focus on human rights abuses in the anglophone part of southern Cameroon, which I have visited on occasions.
I would just say to the noble Lord that we have two options here. Either we remain engaged and have a dialogue with Cameroon and exert influence. I found that, when I was able to meet President Biya, in private we were able to achieve much more by making representations around human rights, but at the same time remaining engaged. I just say to the noble Lord, and others who have a regret about this Motion, we do not have a dispute with the Cameroonian people. We want prosperity, engagement and wealth creation, and if we can achieve those aims, we will see Cameroon move to democracy and to proper all-party elections and, in the meantime, create prosperity for the people of Cameroon and, indeed, the people of this country as well.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
While I sympathise with the spirit of the Motion to Regret, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, like the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, I cannot support it because our imports from Cameroon are so marginal that to impose any restriction on them would penalise some people in a very poor country without having any effect at all on the policies of their Government. EU sanctions might make a difference; on our own, we cannot. Trade flows with Ghana and Cameroon are marginal for us, but the point I draw to the House’s attention is seriously significant to British business because it is common to all these so-called rollover agreements. It is addressed in paragraphs 11 and 22 of the report that we are looking at today and concerns asymmetrical rules of origin, which seem to me to be one of the principal respects in which the new agreements are worse for British business than the situation before Brexit.
Take Cameroon as an example. It imports five times as much from France and more from Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy than it does from this country. Given integrated EU supply chains, there will have been UK content in these imports from the EU, but because our new TCA with the EU does not permit diagonal cumulation, such content will now disqualify such goods from the EU’s preferential trade arrangements, such as those with Cameroon. So, continental businesses will tend to look elsewhere for their components. It is asymmetrical: Cameroon’s exports to us will, under this agreement, still satisfy our rules of origin, however many European components they contain. More seriously, the same asymmetry applies in agreements with major trading partners such as Japan. Under the trade and co-operation agreement, not only will UK-assembled goods—motor vehicles, for example—not have tariff-free access to the continental market; those assembled here will not qualify for the EU’s preferential deals with third countries if their third-country content, in the first case, or their third-country and UK content in the second case, exceed rather low thresholds. That is bound to have serious economic effects in this country.
The problem was addressed at some length in chapter 3 of the EU Committee’s 24th report, of 25 March, Beyond Brexit: Trade in Goods, but I have not seen any government response and the Minister did not address the issue in the letter he kindly sent us yesterday. I would be grateful if he could now tell us what impact assessment the Government have made of the omission of diagonal cumulation under the TCA and its effects on future third-country trade. Perhaps he could also tell us when the House and the country can expect to see such an assessment.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the register of interests. I support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Grantchester and welcome the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on Ghana.
Cameroon is in the grip of a major humanitarian conflict, fuelled by events in the north with Boko Haram and in the anglophone region with the movement there for secession. There are major food shortages and more than 1 million externally and internally displaced people. Ghana, by contrast, is a fully functioning, secure, successful, multi-party democracy. Both, however, have huge potential in terms of agriculture, minerals and manufacturing export. Trade is the key to their future prosperity, and it is on regional trade that I will seek to address the House today.
The Africa free trade agreement offers the best hope for growth in GDP and the alleviation of poverty. Will the Government commit to work, as a matter of urgency and with a specific timetable, to enter into negotiations with the ECOWAS region so as to maximise economic transformation and development through successful regional integration?
The agreement signed with Ghana commits the British Government to do that. It will be vital for there to be capacity, not just within ECOWAS and Ghana in order to negotiate such an agreement. The FCDO has a role to play in that in terms of building capacity, but it is also important that there is a joined-up effort among departments within our own Government in order to ensure that we are able to come to an agreement with the whole of ECOWAS as a matter of urgency. Engagement is crucial.
The Government also, and importantly, need to replicate within west Africa their success in TradeMark East Africa, which supports the development of the market value chain and the development of manufacture and agribusiness in east Africa. We need to see the same in west Africa.
We need to publish a medium-term strategy for our trade support to both Ghana and the Cameroon—and the whole of the ECOWAS region—in order to deliver that as a matter of urgency. Aid will take Africa and this region only so far; trade is much more important in the short, medium and long term. These agreements ought to be working in ways that promote successful integration. I hope that the Government will commit to the resources to make that happen.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lord Purvis for obtaining this debate, and also express my appreciation to the committee for its reports.
At the time that it achieved independence, Ghana ran on British imports, and Kwame Nkrumah was determined to develop home-produced wares. With that in view, he encouraged textiles, which, through a number of state-owned enterprises, provided a great deal of employment. The coup which ousted him in 1966 unhappily let those developments rust away, so that today only 2% of Ghana’s high-quality cotton is processed in the country; most is exported to China and other south-east Asian countries.
In the Covid epidemic, the Ghanaian Government adopted a policy of self-reliance. For example, they developed the production of PPE in their factories and are trying to produce their own pharmaceuticals. Can the Minister tell us to what extent this trade agreement assists this policy of self-reliance? It is clearly in the interests of this country, by reason of our colonial history, not to regard Ghana simply as a customer for our exports; it is important that we use trade to support stability and prosperity in this region, beyond buying their bananas. At the moment, Ghana is less impacted by the terrorist raids and atrocities that undermine some of its neighbours to the north. Let us hope it remains so. The imposition of tariffs on its banana exports, at the beginning of the year, was not helpful. What steps have the Government taken to reimburse those producers whose businesses were hit?
As for the trade deal with Cameroon, can the Minister explain why we have entered into a rollover agreement with a country whose administration is so mired by human rights abuses that even Donald Trump withdrew trade privileges from them? The protection of human rights is said to be an essential element in the agreement, but words are not enough in the face of ongoing human rights abuses, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
The arrests, arbitrary detentions and prosecutions in military courts of opposition members, in the latter part of last year, is just one more example. Another is the violent clearing by police and military, with the use of tear gas, of a magistrates’ court last December, when a group of a hundred lawyers protested against refusal of bail for two of their number, who had been arrested for exercising freedom of speech. The harsh repression of opposition and dissenting voices shows no sign of abating. I am afraid this Government lack the moral compass to do anything to discourage it.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I cannot support the noble Lord’s Motion to Regret. I cannot see that removing preferences will help banana workers in south- west Cameroon.
I will sketch the appalling troubles in Cameroon’s south-west. Britain, Germany and France bear a grave responsibility for restoring peace and stability. Britain’s involvement began in 1845 with the Baptist missionary Alfred Saker, who, with freed Jamaican slaves, built Victoria, now called Limbe, on the gulf. Kew first worked close to Limbe on plant diversity in 1860. I was Kew’s chairman when, in the 1990s, we restored the Limbe botanic garden. Kew has 55,000 specimens from Cameroon and is working on protecting the Ebo forest from logging, by designating it a tropical important plant area.
As chief executive of CDC, I was responsible for its management of the ex-German plantations in the south-west. This started before independence, ran for 40 years and came to an end only when the Blair Government forced CDC to pull out. Skilful management of plantations is a great aid to stability. CDC today, skilfully chaired by Sir Graham Wrigley, is invested in electricity generation and distribution, and has been in Cameroon for 70 years so far. Britain’s pressing responsibilities arise from this 175-year involvement. We need to stay involved to contribute to the much-needed improvement in the lives of Cameroonians.
Regrettably, Cameroon’s development to date is disappointing. This wonderful country’s development is way behind what could and should have been achieved. The re-establishment of peace and security is of the highest importance but cannot rely on Cameroon’s Government. The United Nations cannot do the necessary—we must. Outside the EU, we need to find our own way forward. What is the Government’s policy towards the anglophone crisis in south-west Cameroon?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the seriousness of the situation in Cameroon urgently demands a road to peace. Any form of general instability, upsurges in violence or atrocities in Africa’s central belt, now stretching into northern Mozambique, could create a correlation between abuses by separatists and government forces, which are accused of killing with impunity, and African jihadist terrorist groups turning Cameroon into a fertile recruiting ground.
While western inertia is worrying, positive engagement between the UN special representative and the Government of Cameroon is of course helpful. Judging by the UN Security Council’s briefing on 7 June, both Russia and China have reiterated their position that this is an internal matter, expressing confidence that Yaoundé can manage. The record suggests otherwise.
Encouragingly, however, the US now appears to be leading on pressurising for peace. Although predominantly francophone, Cameroon is an equal member of the Commonwealth, but it was the anglo content that was the driver for admittance. The Commonwealth ASG recently underlined to us a recognition that it wants to do more but is hindered by the Covid situation. Will the Minister encourage the Commonwealth to follow through on this matter of the utmost urgency, updating us today on this and the latest considerations of the OAU?
Government should also place the anomalies of Cameroon high on the list of French bilateral considerations and address the perception of having largely ignored the situation over a long period. London and Paris—which has more influence on Yaoundé than we do—must rub their minds together to bring urgent resolutions to these atrocities. Franco-Cameroonian relations run deep, with multifaceted security co-operation. However, as with the FCDO, little is heard from the Quai d’Orsay, although it responds to debates in the Assemblée Nationale, setting out sizable budgetary allocations to include security and decentralisation.
Today is the opportunity to be informed of the strategy of the UK Government. We owe it to anglo Cameroon, which was let down from the start. The French Foreign Minister recently noted that a whole generation has been sacrificed, that targeted sanctions of asset freezes and travel bans for both sides should be advanced and that an unstable Cameroon is bad for the whole region. I would add to the mix any sanctions that might focus on the development of Cameroon’s offshore gas deposits, particularly the use of LNG facilities in Equatorial Guinea.
During a recent parliamentary Session, the French Government addressed the anglophone crisis, with one deputy accusing the Government of supporting the dictatorial regime of President Biya. He is quoted as saying:
“The French postcolonial denial is very worrying and these old methods of Francafrique lead us into the wall vis-à-vis Africa and Europe”.
He added that it is very worrying for France to remain silent about pertinent issues in Africa, and intimated that the UK has the same historical responsibility.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I welcome this opportunity to scrutinise the economic partnership agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Cameroon as well as the interim trade partnership with Ghana. I welcome the latter and wish to focus my remarks on the former.
Global Britain does at least allow us to trade freely and raise concerns with our trading partners on environmental concerns, addressing climate change and the observance of human rights, the issue that we are looking at here. This is to be welcomed, and I certainly do so. I subscribe to the importance of human rights and the view that greater and open trade affords the opportunity to improve the life chances of people in other countries as well as our own, while pressing for action on these matters, specifically human rights in this case. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister about what action is being taken by the authorities in Cameroon at our behest to end the repression of English-speaking minorities there.
This repression began four years ago and was not a concern when the EU-Cameroon trade agreement was concluded 11 years ago. We need to look at this matter afresh. So, although I strongly support free trade, can my noble friend say what the UK has specifically asked of Cameroon and what we are requiring it to do based on the influence we are able to exercise through this trade agreement concerning the anglophone minorities in the country? They have suffered violence, death, displacement, the arrest of opposition leaders and party members, and widespread disruption, violence and civil disorder. We need to press for action.
I see that the Government have rightly asked the devolved authorities what concerns they have about these agreements. We have also asked the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar about any significant issues of concern. It would be helpful if my noble friend could set out the responses from those authorities. On a broader front, it is clearly useful for us to be able to debate these trade agreements as they are concluded. Can my noble friend consider with the Government and the usual channels a reliable routine procedure for doing this so that Parliament is more closely involved and can express a view in such situations?
Clearly, committees of both Houses and Members in the other place have raised concerns about this agreement. It demands action from the Government on the future process for trade agreements in general, as well as on the particular concerns relating to this agreement. However, I believe that we are more likely to make a difference through trade agreements; I therefore do not support the regret Motion.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, although I disagree with him entirely about the impact of trade historically and in the present day. I quote Professor Patrick Greiner from Vanderbilt University:
“Since … the 1400s, problems of resource scarcity have been managed through colonial conquest and economic integration. These approaches impoverished Global South nations, robbing them of their natural wealth … The result has been development in the Global North, destabilization and impoverishment in much of the Global South and climate change for all.”
I thank both noble Lords for securing this debate and offer the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the Green group’s support for his regret Motion, which addresses human rights abuses specifically. I would say that the political structures that have arisen and allowed this to be are long-term colonial and post-colonial relationships.
The world has agreed to the sustainable development goals, which imagine a different kind of future and interrelationship. I do not think that these two agreements meet or follow that SDG approach. The Government’s own assessment in both these reports refers very narrowly to a different 2015 rapid evidence assessment of the impact of trade between developed and developing nations. The conclusion is that it did
“not provide conclusive guidance on the overall impact … due to a few significant gaps in coverage, particularly regarding the revenue, distributional and social/environmental effects of FTAs.”
To take a quick glance at what trade has done in Ghana and Cameroon, I turn to a World Health Organization report that talks about a tsunami of electronic waste being imported into Ghana and notes:
“A child who eats just one chicken egg from Agbogbloshie, a waste site in Ghana, will absorb 220 times the European Food Safety Authority daily limit for intake of chlorinated dioxins.”
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to the environmental riches of Cameroon. The east and south were once heavily forested, with ebony, sapele and African cherry, among others. A lot of that has gone to musical instruments. Both Cameroon and Ghana have huge deforestation, relating particularly to what is known in Ghana as “galamsey”—craft informal mining, particularly for gold. Among tropical countries, Ghana has suffered among the highest levels of deforestation. There are now 1.6 million hectares of forest in Ghana, down from 8.2 million hectares in 1900.
We are talking about doing more trade on the old kind of terms. We have seen the impacts. Let us stop doing the same things and getting the same results.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, the two trade agreements we are debating today are with two very different countries: Ghana, a flourishing democracy with a robust and growing economy, and Cameroon—[Inaudible]—racked. Noble Lords have spoken so eloquently. They need, therefore, to be considered separately.
I believe we should give our full and unqualified backing to the agreement with Ghana, but I would be grateful if the Minister would give the House a progress report on the preparatory work his department has in hand for a full, new-style free trade agreement with Ghana and other African countries, not just the tread-water, rollover one of which the present agreement consists. In the case of Cameroon, it would be helpful if the Minister could say, quite clearly, whether the reported human rights abuses were raised in the negotiations. If so, what was the response of the Cameroon Government? If not, why not? Is it not the case that the EU’s Cotonou agreement, to which we were hitherto a party, does in fact provide scope for raising human rights abuses?
More widely, what are the Government doing, together with others including the African Union and the Commonwealth, to prevent the internal tensions between the anglophone and francophone communities in Cameroon sliding into a full-blown crisis, of which there are far too many in Africa?
When the Trade Bill was passing through this House, the Minister gave a number of assurances that human rights issues would be an integral part of the Government’s future trade policy. So, these questions are valid ones, and I hope he will be able to answer them. In April, we heard that there had been no discussion of human rights in the context of the UK-Turkey negotiations, despite the prevalence of such problems in that country. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s replies to this debate and, in the light of that, decide whether to support the Motion to Regret which I am minded to do.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to participate briefly in this debate, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Indeed, all the contributions show a great deal of expertise, to which I do not aspire to in relation to Cameroon or Ghana, but which has been fascinating to listen to, not least that of my noble friend, Lord Bellingham, from his ministerial experience there and otherwise.
In my first point, I echo that we do want to operationalise the Ghana agreement; we want to develop our trade with Ghana. Indeed, part of the SDG approach is to use our overseas development assistance to Ghana to help it increase the diversity of its economy, not least in terms of the value chain, so it is not wholly dependent on tourism and commodity exports.
I am grateful to noble Lords for enabling these debates to take place. The International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, did not report these agreements for the special attention of the House, but for information, so it is by virtue of these Motions that we can debate them.
Where Cameroon is concerned, the agreement highlights that we are in a developing situation with our trade policy. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is right: we do need to understand, set out clearly and make more predictable, our human rights approach in relation to trade policy. I would, however, advise caution. I do not think that because the American Government withdrew unilateral preferences from Cameroon that means that we should not have entered into an economic partnership agreement with Cameroon. It is in our interest to build the overall scope of trade with Cameroon. Unilateral preferences are a different thing. I am looking forward to being able to look at the Government’s consultation on a review of the generalised scheme of preferences because there we can take a somewhat more direct approach to those who are the beneficiaries of unilateral preferences and withdraw those preferences where there are systematic abuses of human rights and labour rights and in a number of other circumstances.
We then also need to understand how we are using our influence in economic partnership agreements to improve human rights. The Minister’s letter, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred, said that the Minister for Africa was in Cameroon and talked to the President on 2 March. The agreement was signed on 9 March, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, just said. Perhaps the Minister can tell us a bit more about the nature of that discussion and negotiation.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as an emeritus board member of Vital Voices Global Partnership. I welcome my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s regret Motion on the economic partnership agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Cameroon. I further regret that there has not been full parliamentary scrutiny of and interviews on this matter.
I am surprised that the Minister for Trade—the right honourable Liz Truss, who is also the Minister for Women and Equalities—has agreed to this agreement when we know how women are treated in Cameroon. They are treated as third-rate citizens, receive no respect and are imprisoned. They are just appallingly treated; the present leadership has treated women disgracefully. The leader of the opposition party, Kah Walla, has been to this country a number of times and has had meetings with both the Government and the Opposition over the last 10 years.
A group of prominent women leaders recently had an article in Bloomberg urging the IMF to halt talks on a proposed new loan because of the Government’s alleged misuse of funds intended to fight the pandemic. The IMF is very concerned about what has happened with the previous funding for the pandemic; this is echoed by Human Rights Watch. An audit by a supreme court body found corruption and mismanagement involving $326 million. In a letter to the IMF, 21 Cameroonian leaders demanded that the IMF withhold further money until there is clarification on how the money was spent.
Kah Walla, the leader of the opposition I mentioned earlier, asked for clarity on the funds and for a full audit. I know her extremely well; we have worked together for many years through Vital Voices Global Partnership, supported by Vital Voices, and she has raised these questions of human rights in Cameroon not only with our Government but with the EU, the UN and the American Government. The American Government are certainly very concerned about the situation in Cameroon. If the Government are considering doing a trade deal with this country—a country that does not respect human rights and has been found guilty of corruption—we need to have full scrutiny.
In May 2021, the House of Commons International Trade Committee wrote to the Government asking what consideration had been given to withdrawing funds due to human rights violations in the country. The Government have yet to respond. The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has raised concerns over serious human rights abuses. It also noted that the US withdrew its trade preferences under the African opportunities Act and that the Government have not consulted fully with the devolved Administrations, the dependencies and Gibraltar.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to contribute to this debate and to follow the noble Baroness. I agree with all the speakers who called on us to trade with, as well as give aid, to Africa and other countries; it is very important to do so. I would like to ask a couple of questions relating largely to the Ghana agreement and ask about a wider point made in the report from the International Agreements Committee on the two agreements.
Do the Government intend to seek a future trade agreement with the Economic Community of West African States to support regional integration in west Africa and is there a timetable in which to do so?
I would like to ask about bananas because I understand that banana exports, particularly to Belgium, the UK and France, are extremely important. I know I have berated my noble friend on a number of agreements and said they have been asymmetrical; I recall the Faroes agreement with the UK. However, in this case we export more goods to Ghana than we import. On banana exports, I understand that since 5 March, under Article 83 of the economic partnership agreement with Ghana, goods entering the UK from Ghana have been temporarily subject to import tariffs. Obviously, this has been some penalty to Ghana and could have been avoided. I echo the regret expressed by the International Agreements Committee on the Government’s failure to put in place a bridging mechanism from 1 January until the agreement’s provisional application, which would have avoided costly duties for Ghana’s banana exporters. I make a plea for this to be avoided in future EPAs.
Finally, I would like to ask a question on an issue that was raised on a number of occasions during the passage of what is now the Trade Act through Parliament and in debates on previous agreements and EPAs. The report states:
“The Explanatory Memorandum … to the Agreement explains that Ministers and officials engaged with the Devolved Administrations … on a regular basis throughout the Trade Agreement Continuity Programme and invited them to ‘highlight international agreements of importance or concern’.”
In this regard, can the Government confirm that there was a discussion with the devolved Administrations in the context of the two EPAs, particularly the one with Ghana? Were any significant issues of concern raised by the devolved Administrations? How were they addressed? Alternatively, can they confirm that no significant concerns were expressed?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and to contribute to this debate. I commend both the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Purvis, for securing these debates regarding the new trade agreements with Ghana and Cameroon.
I support the Motion to Regret in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the trade deal with Cameroon on the basis that there has been a lack of thorough impact assessment for these deals and the issue around human rights abuses. I agree that trade with third-world countries is important, as is a substantial overseas aid budget, which should not have been reduced. There is a need to ensure that we have full parliamentary scrutiny for these trade deals and that we examine fully where there have been human rights abuses. I recall that we raised these issues during the passage of the Trade Bill through your Lordships’ House last autumn.
Some key issues have emerged in relation to these trade deals which focus on impact assessments and scrutiny, human rights abuses, regional trade and rendezvous clauses. In relation to impacts assessments and scrutiny, there has been a lack of thorough impact assessments for these deals. Can the Minister ensure that, whatever changes have taken place, there is scrutiny and accountability before these deals are fully implemented? We should remember that there has been no parliamentary scrutiny despite their importance for developing partners.
The International Trade Committee in Parliament asked the Government to consider withdrawing trade preferences from Cameroon in the light of the human rights abuses in the country. The deal includes references to human rights, outlining a process for dealing with such abuses. There has been violence in the anglophone regions of Cameroon as a result of the Government forces’ large-scale security operations, and attacks from armed separatists. Apparently, this has included the burning of villages, the use of live ammunition against protesters, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, sexual abuse and killing of civilians, including women, children and the elderly, by government forces.
Another area of concern is the rendezvous clauses, which mean that specific issues are scheduled for future negotiations. Can the Minister in summing up indicate what action will be taken to address the lack of accountability and scrutiny, along with the level of human rights abuses, before these deals are ratified?
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, before addressing my remarks on our interim trade agreement with Ghana, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and other noble Lords about the ongoing human rights abuses against the anglophone separatists by the Cameroonian Government’s forces. That needs to be kept under constant review. The call from the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, Graham Stuart, for inclusive dialogue and an end to fighting in the north-west and south-west regions of Cameroon has, unfortunately, been falling on deaf ears.
As for Ghana, I have had a long-established relationship with the country, having visited Accra and particularly Kumasi many times. We are all very aware of the enormous opportunities in west Africa, particularly in Ghana, but equally cognisant of the scourge of corruption and lack of accountability and transparency.
Clearly, the interim trade agreement with Ghana, which is worth in excess of £1.2 billion, minimises trade disruption between our respective economies and provides more certainty to businesses and consumers, particularly in agriculture and trade services. I am grateful to the House of Lords Library for its breakdown of the exports and imports of our respective countries, but do not have time to comment on any of the specifics. I agree with all of your Lordships who have commented on the benefits of trade, and particularly this trade agreement, contributing to sustainable growth and poverty reduction in Ghana and providing a platform for greater economic and cultural co-operation.
There is a common need for many of the economies in west Africa to diversify from natural resources, and, in line with ESG, we need to be promoting responsible development in Ghana, not just in energy but infrastructure, health, fisheries, renewables, technology, telecommunications and, of course, agricultural projects, which benefit both the people and the economy. Can the Minister, in winding up the debate, elaborate on our Government’s plans to achieve a trade agreement with ECOWAS which will support regional integration in west Africa, and can he also comment on what assistance our Government are giving to Ghana to help roll out the vaccination programme, the lack of which is so severely stunting economic growth and recovery in the country?
In conclusion, I share the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Grantchester, that these agreements have not been subject to sufficiently detailed scrutiny, but I wholeheartedly support the interim trade agreement with Ghana.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who is an acknowledged expert on Africa. I shall address my comments to the trade deal with Cameroon. I declare my interest in the register as a trustee of the Thin Green Line, a charity devoted to the welfare of wildlife rangers worldwide—and, specifically in this case, in Cameroon. We have heard from other noble Lords about the concerns about human rights issues in Cameroon, and Her Majesty’s Government will no doubt ensure that those are raised at the highest level. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Bellingham said that he raised such issues in private in his distinguished career as Minister for Africa. I also agree with those noble Lords who believe that free trade should be used as a force for good.
I should like to raise something that I think the UK and other countries could be doing in the general area of trade that could reap benefits not just for these African countries but for our planet. It is important for any trade deal to recognise that Cameroon’s rainforest provides important ecosystem services to the world, and to ensure that it does not incentivise deforestation, something that my noble friend Lord Eccles made a historical reference to. Among those ecosystem services from which we all benefit but which none of us pays for is carbon sequestration and storage. The health of Cameroon’s forests and therefore the amount of carbon they sequester and store depends on keystone species such as primates and forest elephants, the latter now recognised as a separate species which is critically endangered, having lost 86% of its population over the past 31 years to the illegal ivory trade.
The International Monetary Fund last year published an estimate of the value of carbon sequestration attributable to each forest elephant as $1.75 million. Similar calculations must be done for other keystone species in other globally important ecosystems. Take apes, for example. Cameroon is home to two sub-species of chimpanzee and two of gorilla, the rarest kind of both apes being endemic to the fragmented forests on either side of the Nigeria-Cameroon border.
The conservation of Cross River gorillas, Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzees and the surviving forest elephants with whom they share their habitat has been hampered in recent years by the serious civil unrest that we have been hearing about. Perhaps by recognising and paying for the ecosystem services that they provide us with, we could bring a conservation peace dividend to the people of this part of Cameroon, as well as reducing the loss of biodiversity and helping to prevent dangerous climate change. Until such payment systems are in place, it falls to charities such as the Thin Green Line Foundation and other members of the Ape Alliance to help local NGOs and community rangers protect these natural gardeners of the forest. These rangers have a precarious and very dangerous job, and we must support them in every way that we can.
Trade should be a positive force for good. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will exert their considerable influence for not only human rights, which are incredibly important, but ecosystems and species, which are also very important and benefit us all. Let us hope that this particular agreement will accelerate this.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Purvis of Tweed, for tabling this debate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the UK-Ghana Interim Trade Partnership Agreement and the UK-Cameroon Economic Partnership Agreement.
I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, and I will try to respond to the many insightful and well-informed points that have been raised, most latterly by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I will write to noble Lords on points that I am not able to deal with—for example, points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, regarding diagonal cumulation, and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I can immediately let my noble friend Lord Lansley know that a consultation will be launched on our planned improvements to the GSP.
First, allow me to set out this Government’s vision for the UK as a newly independent trading nation. We are pursuing an ambitious programme of free trade agreement negotiations to support our vision of an outward-facing, opportunity-embracing global Britain. This includes securing continuity for our most important development-focused agreements, such as those that we have agreed with Cameroon and Ghana. I welcome my noble friend Lord Bellingham’s support in this area.
Turning to these two agreements, we know that trade is a key driver of economic growth which can help raise incomes, create jobs and lift people out of poverty. It is therefore excellent news that the agreements we have secured with Ghana and Cameroon provide continued tariff-free access to the UK market. This encourages export-led growth, supporting and creating jobs in Ghana and Cameroon, which is so important. Of course, this also creates opportunities for UK firms and consumers.
Turning to parliamentary scrutiny of these agreements, I note that Parliament scrutinised the previous EU agreements with Ghana and Cameroon when they were negotiated. I respectfully remind the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, of this. Furthermore, we have both met and gone beyond the statutory requirements of the CRaG, providing comprehensive information to Parliament. For example, we provided detailed parliamentary reports which outlined the approach taken to negotiations, explained any significant differences from the EU agreements and provided analysis of their economic impact.
We established a bridging mechanism with Cameroon to ensure continuity in trade preferences between our countries, avoiding any disruption that otherwise would have occurred. The Trade with Cameroon GOV.UK page was updated on 31 December to inform British and Cameroonian traders that commitments on tariffs were replicated from the previous EU central Africa EPA without changes. The Cameroon EPA was signed on 9 March and on 20 April the signed agreement text, Explanatory Memorandum and parliamentary report were laid in the Libraries of both Houses. This followed the UK’s established treaty ratification processes. I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, but I believe that we have kept Parliament, the WTO and the public informed at every stage of implementing our trading arrangements with Cameroon.
I will say a few words regarding consultation with devolved Administrations on these agreements, in the hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In addition to regular updates across all continuity agreements, the texts of both the Ghana and Cameroon agreements were shared with the devolved Administrations once negotiations were completed. We lead a comprehensive programme of engagement on trade policy with the devolved Administrations, as well as the administrations of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. These engagements are necessarily confidential, which is why we do not give details—but they do support our commitment to deliver trade agreements that will benefit every corner of our country.
I turn to the very real concerns that have been expressed regarding human rights abuses in Cameroon. I can assure the House that the Government are closely monitoring the crisis within Cameroon and share noble Lords’ concerns, as expressed for example by my noble friend Lord Eccles, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and others.
I can reassure my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, that the UK’s relationship with Cameroon allows us to have candid discussions on these issues. In March, the Minister for Africa travelled to Cameroon and made our position very clear in meetings with President Biya, Prime Minister Ngute and Foreign Minister Mbella Mbella.
We continue to call for an inclusive dialogue and an end to fighting in the north-west and south-west regions. We do this in direct conversations with the Government of Cameroon and in multilateral fora. We have urged the Government of Cameroon to work with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and called for investigations to hold perpetrators to account. We have always been clear that increased trade will not come at the expense of our values and that beneficial growth and support for democratic principles are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as we know, more prosperous countries tend to be more secure and peaceful.
By encouraging trade, we believe that we can offer a hand up to those most in need, by creating the opportunities and employment they need to rise out of poverty. Agricultural industries are a huge employer for rural communities in Cameroon, with 12% of Cameroon’s banana exports landing in the United Kingdom. This agreement demonstrates the UK’s commitment to economic stability and opportunity in Cameroon. By encouraging trade, this agreement prevents disruption to the livelihoods of Cameroonians working in these sectors and provides valuable employment. We fervently believe that trade, coupled with unconstrained dialogue about human rights, is the best way forward. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, on this.
I note, of course, the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and others, regarding the US action with Cameroon. The EPA replicates the effect of the previous EU agreement that was in force between the EU and Cameroon at the time of the UK-EU transition period—and, indeed, still is. I do not think it has been recorded during this short debate that the EU stance on these matters is very close to ours and we regularly discuss this crisis with US counterparts and are united in calling for the violence to end and for further dialogue.
On trade with Ghana, the UK made every endeavour to avoid any gap in continuity of Ghana’s duty-free access to UK markets. However, doing so was not entirely within our gift. We had long sought to conclude an agreement with Ghana on the same terms as the agreement that it had with the EU. However, despite our consistent attempts, it chose not to engage in talks with us on this basis for over a year.
I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that the Government could not use a bridging mechanism to maintain Ghana's duty-free quota access during this period, as negotiations on the agreement were still ongoing. I am nevertheless pleased that, once meaningful engagement was established, both sides worked at great pace, concluding negotiations in record time and minimising disruption to trade.
Turning to future trade with the west African region, I shall pick up points made by the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord St John of Bletso, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The UK is very supportive of regional integration. The UK’s agreement with Ghana, as well as with Côte d’Ivoire—both ECOWAS members—includes provisions taken from the relevant EU agreements on working towards a future trade agreement with the west Africa region. We look forward to discussing this prospect further with our west African partners as we develop our trading relationship. We are already expanding our trade relationship with countries such as Nigeria through our economic development forum.
To conclude, the UK’s trade agreements with Ghana and Cameroon reduce tariffs for businesses and pave the way for further economic growth as the world builds back better from Covid-19. Without these agreements, Ghana and Cameroon would have been left behind while other partners continued to benefit from preferential access. Of course, this was an unacceptable outcome for the UK.
I reiterate my thanks to the committee for its examination of these agreements. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I have listened carefully to all the contributions expressed in this debate on scrutiny and trading arrangements. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Lansley, for speaking as Members of your Lordships’ committee that examined these agreements, and I thank the committee for its report. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, with his experience, were particularly pertinent. The contrast between Ghana and Cameroon and their agreements has been interesting and I thank the Minister for the attention that he has given in his replies.
The debate signals the importance of getting scrutiny right in every circumstance. In this deal, adding further areas of negotiation to the deal after it has been signed raises questions about how it can be effectively scrutinised and how the Government can be held to account. This has been a very useful occasion for the House to gain experience in debates on international trading arrangements following Brexit.
I do not raise the matter of voting against one of the Government’s trading agreements lightly. However, given the outcome of the Biya regime, it is of great regret that the Government have not treated this element of an international trade agreement with the seriousness it deserves. The Motion has certainly produced a mixed response. However, to underline that this is a Regret Motion, we must underline our commitment to the most stringent levels of scrutiny with a vote, and I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Republic of Ghana: Interim Trade Partnership Agreement
Lord Purvis of Tweed
That this House takes note of the Interim Trade Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ghana.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the International Agreements Committee